# Global Logistics # Emissions Council # Framework ## For logistics Emissions Accounting and Reporting V3.1 * * * Foreword Freight transportation and logistics activities currently contribute 8% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and demand for freight transport is expected to roughly double by 2050, according to the 1 International Transport Forum. To meet the Climate Targets of the United Nations’ Paris Agreement, it is crucial to improve the efficiency of freight transport and reduce transport-related emissions. A concerted global effort is necessary to achieve goals. The GLEC Framework v3 supports you in your efforts and contribution to reaching these goals. The next few years are decisive in this regard. Failure to reach climate targets could have massive economic impacts, and the expected cost of an increase of 2.0°C is already 11% of the world’s GDP, not to mention the other dramatic changes expected, such as increasing extreme weather conditions, loss of agricultural land, etc.2 However, there is still time to take action, and we must take it jointly and immediately. 2.0^{\\circ}\\mathrm{C} One of the crucial steps needed is to change the way we organize our supply chains and logistics. We must avoid unnecessary transport and empty trips, and optimize the use of existing capacity, as well as make use of the most sustainable transport solutions available. Transparency on the sources of emissions in our transport system is vital to achieving this outcome. To enable this transparency, the Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) has developed the GLEC Framework, which provides guidance on the calculation and reporting of freight transport systems, chains and operations. This framework, first published in 2016, brings together in one place concepts and learning from the world’s leading approaches for calculating greenhouse gas emissions arising from freight transport. Over three years, experts from all over the world collaborated on the development of ISO 14083, which was published in 2023 under the title of: Greenhouse gases — Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations. Following its publication, we have integrated the provisions of ISO 14083:2023 back into the GLEC Framework. The outcome, GLEC Framework v3, is now in front of you. From the GLEC Framework v1 & v2 to the GLEC Framework v3 – this document brings together the accessibility of the GLEC Framework and the requirements of ISO 14083 (see Figure 1 on next page). The GLEC Framework v3 guides and supports companies in implementing transparency on the efficiency of their supply chains and logistics. It offers an easy-to-use approach to an ISO 14083-compliant calculation of GHG emissions from transport, covering the transport itself as well as logistics hubs and the emissions from the energy supply to them both. Throughout the GLEC Framework you will find the relevant references to ISO 14083\. Third party assurance of emission reports is crucial for building trust and credibility, while also highlighting the efficiency and sustainability effort of companies that engage in transport improvements. Using the GLEC Framework will ensure your GHG Emissions Report is ready to be verified by an assurance provider. * * * Many companies have made huge efforts in recent years to reduce their carbon footprint and improve the efficiency and sustainability of their transport chains. Their efforts are most valuable and important, and the GLEC industry partners have incorporated their insights into the GLEC Framework v3. We thank all those who have contributed their expertise and experience. You have made this journey possible. For a further acceleration of changes, it is now important that all companies analyze the efficiency of their transport and logistics and take any possible and necessary steps to optimize their transport system’s efficiency. In particular, multinationals hold the key to reaching climate targets, especially those with global brands and supply chains. As buyers or suppliers of freight services, they have the power to change the way we organize logistics and supply chains. They can act as leaders through reporting carbon emissions, setting climate targets, and collaborating with partners to achieve them. For those of you who have used the GLEC Framework before, you will find a separate chapter on the key changes implemented in the GLEC Framework v3 compared to the - GLEC Framework v2. For everyone else, we hope that this document opens the door to the next chapter for your company, enabling you to improve your efficiency and supporting you in your contribution to reaching climate targets. If you have any questions or suggestions, please let us know. And if you are looking for a platform to exchange experiences in emission accounting, reporting and reduction, come and join Smart Freight Centre’s (SFC’s) GLEC program. We can only reach the necessary low emission freight transport system in cooperation with your active participation. Alan Lewis SFC Chief Technical Officer and project manager of ISO 14083 Verena Ehrler Lead author, convenor of ISO 14083, and professor of Supply Chain Management at IÉSEG School of Management Andrea Schön SFC Program Director, Clean Cargo and Clean Air Andrea Schön SFC Program Director, Clean Cargo and Clean Air Transport, author, and expert of the international committee of ISO 14083 Figure 1 The development of GLEC Framework v3 * * * Acknowledgements The third version of the GLEC Framework is based on the GLEC Framework v2 and incorporates the freight transport related methodologies of ISO 14083 Greenhouse gases — Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations. It was made possible thanks to the SFC team around the globe and the contribution of numerous GLEC members since the formation of the GLEC in 2014. The authors wish to thank the many contributors who offered their insights and perspectives on this work, in particular Jan-Philipp Jarmer and Kerstin Dobers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Material Flow and Logistics (IML) for their work on logistics sites, Giacomo Lozzi for his work on the transport modes and reporting, Noelle Fröhlich of DHL Group, Adrian Wojnowski and Patric Pütz of Smart Freight Centre, and Sophie Punte of the SFC Board of Directors for reviewing the document and supporting the work with their expertise and technical advice. Furthermore, we would like to recognize the valuable work of the team of experts around the globe who worked on the development of ISO 14083. A thank you also to the DIN team in Berlin, in particular Angelina Patel, Mayan Rapaport, Lina Molitor and Wiebke Meister who were the secretariat of the ISO working group. About the GLEC [www.smartfreightcentre.org/en/globallogistics-emissions-council](http://www.smartfreightcentre.org/en/globallogistics-emissions-council) A Smart Freight Centre program, the GLEC logistics-emissions-council A Smart Freight Centre program, the GLEC was established in 2014. GLEC is our community of organizations and NGOs dedicated to driving widespread, transparent, and consistent calculation and reporting of logistics GHG emissions. GLEC works to identify common problems, remove barriers and, above all, share a conviction that emission reduction in freight is urgent. [www.smartfreightcentre.org](http://www.smartfreightcentre.org/) Smart Freight Centre (SFC) is a globally active non-profit organization for climate action in the freight sector. SFC\`s goal is to mobilize the global logistics ecosystem, in particular our members and partners, in tracking and reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. SFC accelerates the reduction of logistics emissions to achieve a zero-emission global logistics sector by 2050 or earlier, consistent with 1.5° pathways. About SFC [www.smartfreightcentre.org](http://www.smartfreightcentre.org/) [www.smartfreightcentre.org](http://www.smartfreightcentre.org/) Smart Freight Centre (SFC) is a globally active Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those by The views expressed in this publication are those by Smart Freight Centre and associated staff, consultants and management, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Smart Freight Centre Board of Directors.. Smart Freight Centre does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and does not accept responsibility for consequences of their use. Local regulations must be followed; the GLEC Framework does not replace any regulatory requirements. * * * Introduction **Global Logistics** **Emissions Council** # 150+ ## Leading multinationals have committed to implementing the GLEC Framework through ## joining the SFC community. ### Learn more about the SFC community and ### our GLEC participants. * * * Structure of the document Introduction Page 7 1. Calculating Page 13 2. Using emission results Page 55 3. Data Page 74 4. Annexes Page 136 List of abbreviations Page 165 Glossary Page 168 Verena Ehrler, Alan Lewis, Andrea Schön, Giacomo Lozzi, Jan-Philipp Jarmer, Kerstin Dobers © Smart Freight Centre. 2024. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Smart Freight Centre would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses the GLEC Framework as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever, without prior permission in writing from Smart Freight Centre. © Smart Freight Centre. 2024. This publication may be reproduced in whole or ISBN 978-90-833629-0-8 SFC Document ID: SFC-GUID-001 v3.1 \[Image: Im0\] \[Image: Im0\] \[Image: Im0\] \[Image: Im2\] \[Image: Im0\] \[Image: Im2\] \[Image: Im2\] \[Image: Im1\] Click on each panel to go straight to the section. \[Image: Im3\] \[Image: Im3\] \[Image: Im3\] \[Image: Im3\] \[Image: Im3\] * * * Introduction to Logistics Emission Accounting Freight Transport’s Climate Impact Transport demand is expected to double by 2050, driven largely by Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even in its most optimistic scenario, the International Transport Forum expects a doubling of transport demand to over 270,000 billion tkm for all transport modes combined by 2050. In its highest scenario, levels of 3 almost 350,000 billion tkm are expected. Logistics’ climate impact is large and growing Growth in the logistics sector does not necessarily have to mean growth in emissions. Indeed, to meet global climate goals – limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels – governments, the logistics sector and its many customers will need to make a concerted effort to decarbonize freight transportation. 1.\ \ \\bar\ 5\ ^{\\circ{\\bar{\\mathrm C}}} The climate impact of logistics and the transport sector accounts for around 60% of global oil demand. The reduction in transport activity during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a massive temporary reduction of GHG emissions as road transport and aviation transport demand were drastically reduced. The International Energy Agency estimates that the reduced road transport demand can be linked to a reduction of 50% in global oil demand and the reduced aviation transport to a reduction of 36% during the pandemic. At the same time, the demand for lowcarbon technologies, including solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy, increased to unprecedented levels, raising their share in the global energy mix to over 20%.4 In fact until 2021, transport related oil demand levels were below pre-pandemic levels, resulting in a reduced annual emission of 600 Mt CO emissions compared to 2019 levels. 2 The trend of growth in transport demand, with the related GHG emissions has returned since then and is continuing5. Further action is therefore needed to reach climate targets.6 * * * Introduction **Global Logistics** **Emissions Council** **Figure 3** ## Each mode of transport contributes ## to logistics emissions, to varying degrees. # Logistics emissions are set to increase # 36% but they need to be close to net # zero by 2050! ### Tonnes CO2 Source: International Transport Forum Outlook 2023 * * * Why companies use the GLEC Framework GHG emissions have become the default metric for communicating climate sustainability between buyers, suppliers, investors, customers and governments and beyond. Tracking GHG emissions over time allows companies to use both total emissions and emission intensity as key performance indicators (KPIs) in operational and supply chain planning and target-setting. Despite this, carbon accounting for logistics is still a relatively new practice. The complexity of the sector requires a simple and practical approach that companies of all sizes and institutional capacities can apply – the GLEC Framework offers such an approach. Here are some ways the GLEC Framework streamlines GHG emission accounting across supply chains and geographies: The Framework works for decision-making GHG accounting can be used in investment, The GLEC Framework aligns with ISO 14083 and is recognized by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. It is the recommended method for reporting logistics emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and for setting targets in line with the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). The Framework works for all transport stakeholders Covering the entire transport chain, the The Framework works for decision-making GHG accounting can be used in investment, procurement and sales strategies to assess the impact of different scenarios, predict the carbon return on investment and track progress toward climate goals following implementation. This leads to improved efficiency and bottom-line financial savings, alongside reduced climate and health impacts. stakeholders Covering the entire transport chain, the Framework works for carriers, logistics service providers (LSPs) and shippers as well as other end-users of emissions information, such as governments, investors and green freight programs. It works for companies just beginning to account for their transport emissions through to those that have full visibility of emissions in their operations and supply chain – and provides an accessible and realistic pathway for the former to progress and achieve the latter. With its global applicability, it can also provide guidance to policymakers who are looking to implement carbon accounting regulations for transport. freight programs Green freight programs play a critical role in connecting shippers and carriers around the globe. Accounting and reporting freight activity are part of the broader process of supply chain efficiency and sustainability efforts that green freight programs help to support. The GLEC’s partnerships with global green freight programs, such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) SmartWay, Clean Cargo, Lean & Green, Clean Air Transport, Sea Cargo Charter, Smart Freight Alliance China and Programa de Logística Verde, are essential for streamlining carbon accounting and emission reduction on a global scale. * * * How to use the GLEC Framework The GLEC Framework offers clear guidance while leaving enough space for adaptability to the specific needs of your situation. It provides information on the requirements toward the definition of boundaries and data sourcing throughout the entire transport chain, from sender to receiver. Different levels of granularity in the detailing of transport chain analysis can be realized with it. It also maps out reporting requirements from the basic “must-have” to very advanced levels of detailed information to ensure that you can gain the best insights possible into the improvement potential within your transport and logistics services. HOC). The Framework in the presented form focuses on the most common situations to keep it easy to use. To make the application even more accessible, example cases and company-specific use cases are to be found in Module 4. Therefore, you can use the document to familiarize yourself with GHG emission accounting and reporting. At the same time, advanced users of emission accounting tools will find all necessary information on the concept and requirements of ISO 14083. For ease of orientation, the end of each paragraph references the related ISO chapters. Changes introduced in Framework v3 in comparison to v2 The GLEC Framework v3 has the transport chain and its transport chain elements (TCEs) as its starting point, just like its predecessor. However, the perspective of analysis and reporting have evolved slightly. The GLEC Framework v2 classified logistics emissions into three scopes, following the principles of accounting put forward by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from assets owned or controlled by the reporting company, Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from the production and distribution of electricity, heat and steam purchased by the reporting company and Scope 3 includes indirect emissions from the reporting company’s supply chain, such as transportation emissions and product use. The GLEC Framework v3, in line with ISO 14083, divides the overall GHG emissions into emissions related to the energy use for the operation of transport or hub activities and the emissions related to the provision of this energy. Whereas the emissions of the transport operations – hub and transport activity – constiute the tank-towheel (TTW) (also referred to as “tank-to-wake” where appropriate) emissions, the energy provision emissions for energy used for transport activity or hub operations make up the well-totank (WTT) emissions. With the v3.1 update, minor changes have been implemented, primarily data sources used in Module 3. A detailed overview of the tracked version can be found in the Glossary on page 171. Figure 4 GHG emissions well-to-wheel (WTW) * * * How to use the GLEC Framework So, where does this leave Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. See also Figure 5: Scopes of accounting. The ownership of the vehicle or equipment carrying out the transport or hub operation is not decisive for the calculation of emissions. It is the position of the reporting organization within the value chain that determines which scope category the emissions fall into. The link between transport operation providers and users is provided via reporting between supply chain partners. Traditional Scope 3 users of transport services will need to be provided with information on the activity carried out and the related emission intensities, or with the readily calculated emissions of their transport chains from Scope 1 and Scope 2 providers of transport services. (For further details, see also Section 2 Chapter 1 Reporting Emissions). The concept of TOC and HOC has been updated and given additional prominence. Previously referred to as Transport Service Categories (TSCs), TOCs and HOCs serve two major purposes: providing the boundary for the calculation of emission intensity values, and the allocation of emission intensity values for specific TCEs. These TOCs and HOCs are clusters of transport or hub activities of similar character and emission intensity. There are guidelines for the clustering of transport or hub services into categories, which can be found in Section 1 Chapter 4, Information and Requirements for the Individual Transport Modes. Each organization providing transport services must build the TOC and HOC clusters in line with its specific situation, ideally aligned with the information needs of its key customers. (For more information on TOCs and HOCs, see Chapter 3 Steps for establishing the emission intensity factors of a TOC or a HOC). Further changes are the inclusion of: • additional modes of transport • additional modes of transport (pipelines and cable cars) • processes of hub equipment energy provision • processes of hub equipment energy provision • construction and dismantling of energy • start-up and idling of vehicles, pipelines, transshipment and (de)boarding equipment • cleaning/flushing operations for pipelines • construction and dismantling of energy infrastructure (to be embedded within emission factors) • start-up and idling of vehicles, pipelines, • cleaning/flushing operations for pipelines • combustion and/or leakage of energy carriers • amendments to reporting requirements • combustion and/or leakage of energy carriers at vehicle or hub equipment level • leakage of refrigerants used by vehicles The GHG protocol classifies emissions into three categories, Scope 1, 2 and 3. ISO 14083 avoids this distinction, as these scope differentiations are considered commercially driven distinctions. Instead, ISO 14083 distinguishes between direct and indirect emissions. • leakage of refrigerants used by vehicles and hubs • amendments to reporting requirements Figure 5 Scopes of Scopes of accounting Scope 2 Electricity emissions Indirect emissions from electrictiy heat, and steam purchased by the reporting company Scope 1 emissions include the direct emissions from assets that are owned or controlled by the reporting company. This includes the combustion of solid or liquid fuels purchased to produce energy, heat or steam for use in stationary or mobile equipment (e.g. vehicles, vessels, aircraft, locomotives, generators) and/ or buildings associated with logistics sites (e.g. warehouses). Scope 1 emissions include the Scope 2 emissions are indirect direct emissions from assets that emissions from the production and distribution of electricity, heat and reporting company. This includes steam purchased by the reporting the combustion of solid or liquid company for use in its own logistics sites, electric vehicles energy, heat or steam for use in or other owned asset requiring stationary or mobile equipment electricity. * * * How the Framework is organized \[Image: Im2\] This document is divided into three primary sections. Section 1 covers the calculations themselves. It is divided into Chapter 1, which provides an overview of the foundations and principles of the GLEC Framework; Chapter 2, which guides you through the steps in emissions accounting and Chapter 3, which explains how the emission intensity factors for TOCs and HOCs are established. Chapter 4 then provides additional information specific to each transportation mode and logistics hubs. In Section 2, information on how to report and use calculation results is detailed. Chapter 1 of Section 2 provides information on reporting and disclosure, and Chapter 2 of Section 2 discusses ways in which carbon emissions can be used in decision-making and target-setting. These first two sections are followed by Section 3, which holds all additional information for the data sourcing and calculation of GHG emissions, including discusses ways in which carbon emissions can real-life examples. Section 3 is divided into modules, with Module 1 listing Fuel Emission Factors, Module 2 Default Energy Efficiency and CO2e Intensity Factors, Module 3 Refrigerant Emission Factors and Module 4 the Calculation Examples. In practice, we know logistics accounting isn’t always a linear process. You may find yourself going back and forth between sections to learn more about a certain mode, check the glossary or find data collection guidance. As new data becomes available, you may return to the Framework to refine calculations. * * * ## Calculating #### Chapter 1 Foundations of the GLEC Framework #### Chapter 2 Calculation steps **1** #### Chapter 3 Steps for establishing the Emission #### Intensity Factors of a TOC or a HOC #### Chapter 4 ### i Information and requirements for the #### individual transport modes and hubs #### References _Click on each icon to go straight to the chapter_ _Click here to go back to Structure of the document page_ * * * Chapter 1 Foundations of the GLEC Framework 1 < Click here to go back to Section 1 contents page The foundations of the GLEC Framework are 1. Coverage of all operations in the transport chain 2. Coverage of all operations in the transport chain 3. Inclusion of all Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4. Inclusion of all Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) greenhouse gases and climate pollutants (status spring 2023) 5. Coverage of emissions of all forms and the entire life cycle of fuel 6. Coverage of emissions of all forms and the entire life cycle of fuel and energy 7. Alignment with all key international standards and emission 8. Alignment with all key international standards and emission reporting programs Application of the GLEC Framework ensures an alignment with the basic foundations of logistics emissions accounting. The following chapter sets the foundation of the Framework, establishing the guiding principles and boundaries of the method. Coverage of emissions from all forms and the entire life cycle of fuel and energy Inclusion of all IPCC greenhouse gases Figure 1 The foundations of GLEC Framework v3 * * * The GLEC Framework aims to cover all freight transport and hub operations along the transport chain. It covers transport operations from national to international levels, anywhere in the world. Transshipment points along a journey, such as ports or warehouses where goods are transferred, stored or repackaged are also included. They are classed together as hubs. Furthermore, in line with the scope of ISO 14083, freight transport using pipelines and cable cars is added to this new GLEC Framework. 1. Coverage of all operations in the transport chain An organization’s emission footprint from its freight transport and hub operations is the sum of emissions of all transport chains, taking into consideration emissions from the organization’s own operations, purchased energy and subcontracted operations (Scope 1, 2 and 3) as well as emissions across the full fuel/energy life cycle. This applies to organizations that are transport providers as well as to their customers. The GLEC Framework v3 covers all of these. Figure 2 Modes covered by GLEC Framework v3 Pipelines Figure 3 Example of a transport chain and its TCEs Calculating emissions of transport chains based on TCEs’ emissions The starting point for the calculation of GHG emissions from transport operations is the identification of “transport chains.” A transport chain always begins at the point where an item of freight is leaving a consignor, i.e. the point of departure of a shipment, which is often the sender or shipper. It ends when the item reaches its consignee, i.e. usually the receiver of the shipment, also defined as the point where the first non-transport related operation is carried out on the freight. Both consignor and consignee, can also be e.g. wholesalers, retailers or intermediaries. * * * Figure 4 Scope 1, 2, and 3 according to the GHG protocol7 The GHG Protocol also has as a key objective the consideration of all emissions from one organization, direct as well as indirect (see also Introduction to Logistics Emission Accounting, Info box Scopes of Accounting). For this purpose, it distinguishes between the organization’s directly owned emissions (Scope 1), indirectly owned emissions (Scope 2), and indirect, not-owned emissions (Scope 3). Calculating emission for three scopes of an organization Emissions of an organization, e.g. an LSP or shipper, are calculated by adding up all emissions from transport chains that are used by the organization as well as its subcontractors. What is considered as Scope 1 or 3 depends on the organization’s perspective. For a carrier or hauler, transportrelated emissions are considered Scope 1, but for their customer (and LSP or shipper) these emissions are included in Scope 3. ISO References: 1. Introduction and 3. Definitions, in particular 3.1.25 Transport Chain (TC), and 3.1.26 Transport Chain Element (TCE) 2. Inclusion of all IPCC greenhouse gases and climate pollutants Black carbon is the term used for particulate matter emitted from partial combustion of complex hydrocarbon fuels. As such, it is prevalent in freight transport which often relies on such fuels. It is a short-lived climate pollutant with potent global warming potential and a negative effect on human health. The GLEC Framework provides a separate approach to calculate emissions from black carbon in “The Black Carbon Methodology for the Logistics Sector.” This approach for the calculation of black carbon was developed by the Smart Freight Centre, the UN Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the International Council on Clean Transportation and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay team as an optional element to the GLEC Framework v2 and is also included as an optional (“informative”) Annex to ISO 14083.9 GHGs included in ISO 14083 and the GLEC Framework v3 are: • CO Carbon Dioxide • CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons • HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons 2 • CH4 Methane • CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons The Black Carbon Methodology provides a way to calculate emissions from black carbon following the same principles as the GLEC Framework. Learn more at [https://www.ccacoalition.org/](https://www.ccacoalition.org/) en/resources/black-carbon-methodologylogistics-sector * * * 3. Coverage of emissions from all forms of fuel and energy sources The GLEC Framework accounts for all relevant logistics emissions from transport operations, as well as the emissions resulting from the energy or fuel provision related to these operations. It includes the energy consumption of all transport operation related processes, regardless of whether this energy consumption is caused by combustion, by fuel leakage or by refrigerant leakage. For hub operational processes, all handling, on-site transportation and transshipment as well as (dis)embarking equipment and facilities, including heating and temperature control are considered. Covered by the GLEC Framework v3 are therefore: • processes of hub equipment operation (including operations of forklifts, pallet trucks, etc.); • processes of vehicle energy provision; • processes of vehicle energy provision; • processes of hub equipment energy • any loaded and empty trips made by vehicles, including diversionary and/or out-of-route distance; • construction and dismantling of energy • combustion and/or leakage of energy carriers at vehicle or hub equipment level;\* • processes of hub equipment energy provision;\* • any loaded and empty trips made by • construction and dismantling of energy infrastructure;\* • start-up and idling of vehicles, pipelines, • cleaning/flushing operations for pipelines;\* • combustion and/or leakage of energy carriers • leakage of refrigerants used by vehicles and hubs;\* - = new additions since GLEC Framework v2 As the GLEC Framework v3 includes all modes of transport, as well as any hubs which are part of the transport chain, energy consumptions of contractors and any form of subcontractors, as well as their combustion and leakages, are included, independent of who is carrying out these operations. • For solid, liquid and gaseous energy carriers: the production and dismantling of the infrastructure of the energy source; extraction or cultivation of primary energy; chemical processing; transport and distribution (including pipeline) of energy at all steps of the production of the energy carrier. • For electricity: extraction, processing and the calculation of emissions is not permitted. Where any omissions are made despite this general rule, these must be stated and justified in the report (see Section 2 Chapter 1 Reporting Emissions). Should the recommended or best available GHG emission factors not include the production and dismantling of the infrastructure of the energy source, it is important to note this in the emission reporting. Omission of any processes from Figure 5 Calculating refers to a method used to calculate the energy consumed and GHG emitted from the point of transmission of transport fuel to the vehicle (at the recharging or refueling station) to the moment of its discharge (consumption of the fuel or electricity, while on the move.)“9 WTT emissions within the GLEC Framework v3 and ISO 14083 are referred to as energy provision emissions. WTT refers to a “method used to calculate the energy consumed and GHG emitted from the moment of production of a transport fuel (petrol, diesel, electricity, natural gas) to the moment of fuel supply (at the recharging or refueling station.)”9 WTW or “well-to-wake” emissions are the sum of WTT and TTW emissions. Together they comprise the total emissions of a TCE. The GLEC Framework v3, like the ISO 14083, is based on the WTW concept, i.e. the inclusion of the total emissions of a transport chain and its elements. * * * Calculating emissions across the fuel/energy life cycle ISO 14083 and the GLEC Framework v3 require that calculating emissions of a transport chain covers the full fuel/energy life cycle. This includes both emissions from energy and fuel consumption TTW as well as their provision WTT, which combined are WTW emissions (see Figure 10 Calculating WTW emissions of a transport chain). Consequently, an organization that is using the GLEC Framework v3 needs to include WTW emissions from fuel/energy used in emission calculation for all transport chains so that both emissions from transport operations and related energy provision are taken into consideration. Special considerations for alternative energy sources To cover the entire emissions of a transport or hub operation activity, energy provision (WTT) emissions need to be included. For alternative energy sources this can be challenging. It is particularly relevant where GHGs are emitted in the WTT phase (e.g. from hydrogen and electricity) or where CO emitted in 2 combustion is considered to be balanced by carbon sequestration of CO2 in the feedstock production phase (biofuels.) \\mathrm{C O}\_{2} For this reason, as biofuels and renewable energy sources gain a larger market share, ISO 14083 gives guidelines for the inclusion of energy provision emissions. Biofuel Because biofuel production methods vary Biofuel Because biofuel production methods vary more widely than conventional fuels due to different feedstock and associated processes, there is no single standard recognized emission intensity value for the energy provision (WTT). Biofuel providers will be able to provide this value directly; other sources may be life cycle databases, government agencies and green freight programs. Annex J of ISO 14083 sets out the elements to be considered in the calculation of the upstream processes and emission relevant activities. \\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\\mathrm{e} Biofuel in Conventional Fuels Conventional fuels often include a small Electricity When calculating the emissions from electricity consumption, the source of energy used to create the electricity has to be considered. Therefore, specific emission factors are used to convert electricity use to CO2e, based on the source(s) of energy used to generate the electricity used. Emission factors are expressed as mass of CO2e released per kilowatt hours (kWh). Electricity When calculating the emissions from Growing investment in renewable energy technologies means that electricity emission factors in some countries are changing rapidly. Therefore, organizations’ databases should be updated regularly. To ensure a full WTW approach, all these elements must be included in the national electricity emission values. (ISO 14083 Annex J.3 gives detailed guidance on the application of electricity emission factors, especially on location-based vs. market-based factors.) The International Energy Agency (IEA) compiles and publishes annually updated lists of national electricity emission factors, and we recommend companies use this as a source of information. The factors are available for purchase from the IEA website. At the time of publication, there is no widely accepted value for hydrogen fuel cell WTT emissions. Please refer to the producer for more information about hydrogen production and distribution. IEA electricity emissions factors include data for the following items: • gCO2/kWh produced during electricity • gCO2/kWh produced during electricity generation • gCO2e/kWh contribution from CH4 produced • gCO2e/kWh contribution from CH4 produced during electricity generation • gCO2e/kWh contribution from N2O • gCO2e/kWh contribution from N2O produced during electricity generation • Correction for transmission and distribution • Correction for trade induced emissions (gCO2/kWh) * * * At the core of the GLEC Framework is the alignment of global efforts in carbon accounting for logistics operations. It builds on international standards and harmonizes practices and guidelines for green freight programs developed by industry, experts, practitioners and governments around the world. This improves compatibility and comparability of results, while streamlining data collection and reporting efforts. 4. Alignment with key international standards and base methodologies Not included in the calculation of GHG emissions are: • the production and supply processes The following table gives an overview of the key international standards and methodologies with which the GLEC Framework v3 is aligned (Table 1). Exclusions from the GLEC Framework • processes at the administrative (overhead) level of the organizations involved in the transport services; • processes for the construction of vehicles • the production and supply processes of refrigerants; • waste produced; • waste produced; • processes at the administrative (overhead) Table 1 Overview of emissions accounting and reporting methods which are harmonized in the GLEC Framework Attention: the outcomes of any form of carbon offsetting actions or GHG emissions trading are excluded. These are not part of the transport chain GHG emission calculation or eligible for tracking progress against science-based targets for the transport sector, although they can be included in the subsequent environmental reporting and claims of an organization depending on the basis upon which the claims are being made. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Alignment level | Norm/Standard/Protocol | | --- | --- | | High-level alignment over entire GLEC Framework v3 | ISO 14083 | | Greenhouse Gas Protocol v1 | | | • Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard | | | • Scope 2 Guidance, and Corporate | | | • Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard | | | IPCC Good Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Guidance) | | | SBTi | | | International Air Transport Association Recommended Practice 1678 (updated 2022)10and RP 1726 202211 | | | Air | SmartWay Air Cargo Tool12 | | ISO 14083 | | | Hubs | Guide for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting at Logistics Hubs v213 | | Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprinting for Container Terminals14 | | | SmartWay Barge Carrier Tool15 | | | Inland Waterways | GHG Emission Factors for Inland Waterways Transport16 | | International Maritime Organization Ship Energy Efficiency Operation Index17 | | | Pipelines | ISO 14083 | | Rail | EcoTransIT World: Environmental Methodology and Data Update202418 | | SmartWay Rail Carrier Tool19 | | | Road | 4.2 2022(Europe20), SmartWay Road Carrier Tool21 | | Sea | International Maritime Organization Ship Energy Efficiency Operation Index17 | | Clean Cargo Carbon Emissions Accounting Methodology22(Currently applies to container shipping only) | | * * * Chapter 2 Calculation steps 1 Click here to go back to Section 1 contents page An organization’s freight and logistics emissions are the sum of emissions from transport chains, which in turn consists of multiple TCEs. The GLEC Framework v3 takes a bottom-up approach and starts with TCEs. This chapter explains the calculation steps for emissions for each TCE. The calculation of GHG Emissions is carried out in three steps: 1. Calculate the transport activity of the TCE. 2. Identify the applicable emission intensity of this TCE by 3. Identify the applicable emission intensity of this TCE by establishing the relevant TOC or HOC applicable. 4. Calculate the TCE’s emissions by multiplying the transport 5. Calculate the TCE’s emissions by multiplying the transport activity with the emission intensity value. _HSJ\\SH\[PVUVM\[OL;_,»ZLTPZZPVU\ \ Figure 1\ Calculation steps\ \ * * *\ \ Calculation of the activity\ of the TCE\ \ Transport activity of a TCE is expressed\ in tonne-kilometers (tonne-km or tkm).\ Therefore, to calculate the transport activity\ of a TCE, you need to establish the freight\ mass that is transported as well as the\ distance. Freight mass is quantified in metric\ tons (1 metric ton = 1000 kg) or in kg. If other\ units of weight are used, these must be\ clearly stated and communicated, including\ in the reporting. In some cases, different\ approaches can be necessary:\ • If the weight of the transported freight\ \ Calculation of transport activities\ \ • If the weight of the transported freight\ is known in Twenty-foot Equivalent Units\ (TEUs) only and not in kg or metric tons,\ an average weight of 10 tonnes per TEU\ can be assumed. If the containers are\ light, then 6 tonnes can be used as\ approximation, and if they are heavy, an\ average weight of 14.5 tonnes can\ be assumed.\ • For special transports, e.g. parcel and post\ \ consignor to consignee. The use of different\ units for distance is also possible here if\ these are clearly stated and communicated,\ including in the reporting. The transport\ activity distance is either the shortest feasible\ distance (SFD), or the Great Circle Distance\ (GCD) (see text box on distances).\ \ Capturing shipment mass and distance in\ an accurate and consistent manner can\ be surprisingly difficult to achieve, largely\ because it is a concept that is not yet\ widespread at the organization level. Shippers\ may not be able to acquire this information\ from their carriers, and carriers may struggle\ to correlate their transport activity with\ actual energy consumption. The following\ paragraphs give guidance on how to establish\ the shipment weight and transport distance.\ \ Capturing shipment mass data\ \ Identification of the applicable emission intensity for the TCE\ \ Calculation of the TCE’s emission\ \ transported or handled is the actual shipment\ mass (often colloquially referred to as weight).\ Mass weight can be consistently applied\ across the supply chain, as this approach is\ in line with the key approaches for transport\ operation emission calculation. Volume,\ density and other metrics may be used by\ companies for analysis and, in some cases,\ reporting, but mass should be communicated\ alongside these metrics to ensure consistency\ along the multimodal supply chain.\ \ * * *\ \ Figure 2\ Calculating the transport activity of a TCE\ \ Transport\ Activity of a\ TCE in tkm\ \ Mass of\ shipment 1\ in tonnes\ \ Transport\ Activity\ Distance of\ shipment 1\ in km\ \ Mass of\ shipment 2\ in tonnes\ \ Transport\ Activity\ Distance of\ shipment 2\ in km\ \ +...+\ \ Mass of\ shipment n\ in tonnes\ \ Transport\ Activity\ Distance of\ shipment n\ in km\ \ Capturing transport distance data\ \ While it may seem simple to establish the\ distance of transport operations, especially\ considering developments in GPS and\ telematics systems, quantifying distance\ consistently and accurately is part of what\ makes logistics emissions accounting a\ complicated endeavor.\ \ Many shipments are moved via multiple\ transport legs and modes, and some are\ handled by multiple carriers. Sometimes there\ are intermediate stopovers in locations that\ reflect a carrier’s transport network rather than\ the most direct route; sometimes routes are\ modified due to weather, tides, construction or\ traffic conditions, information that may or may\ not be known to other parties.\ \ The GLEC Framework is based on the concept\ of transport chains and TCEs (see also Section\ 1 Chapter 1 The Transport Chain). The distance\ of a transport chain is measured from the\ point where the shipper hands goods over\ to the carrier, so when leaving the consignor,\ and ends with the hand-over of the shipment\ to another carrier or the consignee. The\ distance of a transport TCE is defined by\ \ This is further complicated by goods traveling\ on shared transport assets, where shipments\ are consolidated to increase vehicle loading\ and hence efficiency but may lead to longer\ distances being traveled than would be the\ most direct route for an individual shipment.\ \ freight being carried by a single vehicle (hub\ TCEs are associated with zero distance), with\ each change of vehicle or hub requiring the\ identification and calculation of a separate TCE.\ Distance information must be collected for\ each TCE, either through direct measurement\ or estimation. Three common approaches to\ establishing distance are used within the GLEC\ Framework: SFD, GCD and actual\ distance corrected by a Distance Adjustment\ Factor (DAF).\ \ Once mass and distance are established per\ TCE, the transport activity can be calculated,\ preferably in in tonne-kilometers. This is done\ by multiplying the mass of a consignment,\ quantified in tonnes, by the transport activity\ distance of this specific consignment,\ measured in kilometers. The resulting tonnekilometer brings together weight and distance\ as the metric for freight transport activity. It is\ important to calculate the transport activity\ per shipment of each TCE separately. In line\ with ISO 14083 a shipment is defined as an\ “identifiable collection of one or more freight\ items (available to be) transported together from\ the original shipper to the ultimate consignee.”9\ For establishing the tonne-kilometer for\ an entire TCE, the tonne-kilometer of each\ shipment is then added in a next step.\ \ Distances\ \ SFD\ SFD represents the shortest practical route\ between two places taking into account\ the real operating conditions, such as\ the physical restrictions of a vehicle (e.g.\ weight and height), road type, topography\ and congestion and is typically found\ using route planning software. For most\ situations, it is the recommended approach.\ (It is important to keep in mind that SFD\ does not reflect the shortest distance if\ you are willing to risk shortcuts that might\ be unsuitable for your vehicle type or\ congestion typical of a city center.)\ GCD\ \ GCD\ Also known as direct distance or “as the\ \ GCD\ Also known as direct distance or “as the\ crow flies,” GCD is an approach to distance\ measurement that is currently focused on\ air transport. It is the shortest distance\ between two points by crow-line, including\ the curving of the earth. While this is a\ compelling option for harmonizing distance\ measurement across multimodal supply\ chains, it is currently not widely known or\ accepted outside of the aviation industry.\ \ * * *\ \ Calculation of hub operation activities\ \ Hub operation activity is quantified based on\ the tonnes throughput of shipments leaving\ the center, i.e. outbound freight.\ \ Inclusion of packaging\ into the freight’s weight\ \ It is important, that you always include the\ mass of the packaging provided by the\ consignor when establishing the weight of\ the freight.\ \ Instead, the weight of packaging necessary\ for transport or hub operations, such as the\ mass of pallets or of containers, are not to\ be included. Be aware though, that, when\ empty containers are transported, they are\ considered as the freight. In these cases, the\ empty container’s weight equals the mass of\ the transported and handled freight.\ \ Identification of the applicable\ emission intensity for the TCE\ \ In order to identify the emission intensity\ applicable for a specific TCE, it must be\ established to which TOC or HOC this TCE\ can be linked. A TOC is a group of transport\ operations that share similar characteristics\ and a HOC is a group of hub operations that\ share similar characteristics, in a defined\ period, which is typically one calendar year\ unless specified otherwise and explained in\ the related reporting.\ \ journey type, type of cargo being transported,\ temperature-controlled transport, specific\ trade lanes, the nature of freight carried, or the\ nature of the contractual agreement. (Further\ suggestions for the characteristics which can\ be used to establish TOCs can be found in the\ transport mode specific chapters of Section\ 1 Chapter 4). Transport is rarely carried out in\ isolation for each piece of freight or shipment.\ Instead, it is usually bundled to optimize space\ and time. The identification of TOCs and\ HOCs also contributes to avoiding the need\ for calculating emission intensity for each and\ every individual transport.\ \ TOCs and HOCs):\ • TOC of a single vehicle on a single journey\ • TOC of a single vehicle in multiple schedules\ • TOC of a specific vehicle type in a single\ \ Both TOCs and HOCs, can have different\ levels of granularity, depending on the analysis\ needed and the data available (see also Info\ box Granularity of TOCs and HOCs). ISO\ 14083 suggests as examples (see also Info box\ Recommendations Regarding Granularity of\ TOCs and HOCs):\ • TOC of a single vehicle on a single journey\ \ • TOC of a specified group of vehicles in a\ single schedule\ • TOC of a specified group of vehicles in\ \ Based on this emission intensity value of the\ relevant TOC or HOC, the emissions of an\ individual transport chain element can then\ be calculated.\ \ • TOC of a single vehicle in multiple schedules\ • TOC of a specific vehicle type in a single\ journey\ • TOC of a specific vehicle type in multiple\ \ journey\ • TOC of a specific vehicle type in multiple\ schedules\ • TOC of a specified group of vehicles in a\ \ • Hubs or terminals with transshipment and/or\ warehousing as relevant services, etc.\ \ Calculation of the TCE’s emission\ \ | Shipment | Tonnes |\ | --- | --- |\ | 1 | 10 |\ | 2 | 40 |\ | 3 | 400 |\ | 4 | 10 |\ | 5 | 60 |\ | Total tkm | |\ \ | Kilometer | Tonne-kilometer |\ | --- | --- |\ | 1,000 | 10,000 |\ | 400 | 16,000 |\ | 300 | 120,000 |\ | 700 | 7,000 |\ | 1,200 | 72,000 |\ | | 225,000 |\ \ analyzed transport operations and transport\ chains. Default factors are just best-case\ approximations to the actual situation. Using\ default factors limits the ability to use carbon\ emissions as a KPI to evaluate carriers, routes\ and other operational differences.\ \ * * *\ \ Recommendations\ regarding the\ granularity of\ TOCs and HOCs\ \ Consider fleet compositions.\ \ • If a carrier specialized in temperaturecontrolled services runs a fleet of 40-tonne\ trucks, it is possible that there is not much\ differentiation within the services offered. In\ this case the carrier can establish and use\ a single emission intensity for the whole\ fleet, i.e. the whole fleet represents one TOC\ (“TOC of a specific vehicle type in multiple\ schedules.”)\ \ • If a carrier fleet consists of different vehicle\ sizes offering different service types, the\ fleet specification needs to be adjusted\ accordingly (“TOC of a specified group of\ vehicles in multiple schedules”). Such vehicle\ groups may be split into further clusters,\ e.g. linehaul and last mile delivery, which still\ contain multiple schedules but each with\ similar emission intensities. If the services are\ not comparable and have different emission\ intensities, a further differentiation into\ separate TOCs is needed, such as local vs.\ regional, densely populated urban vs rural\ areas, etc.\ \ Align TOC and HOC definitions with those\ of the main stakeholders of the offered\ transport services. If a customer needs to\ add up emissions from different providers, the\ customer may need to use TOCs and HOCs\ which all providers apply in a comparable and\ consistent way.\ \ Separate clusters for some customers. If\ a customer wants to know the impact on the\ emissions of the change of the energy source\ used for a transport service, the concerned\ group of vehicles in the specific (group of)\ schedule(s) needs to be clustered separately\ into a TOC (or HOC respectively). Then\ information about those specific transport\ services can be generated to understand\ the impact of such a change. (This would be\ particularly important for insetting projects.)\ \ Distance clusters in air transport. There\ is no linear dependency of carbon intensity\ and the distance of a flight. Take-off and\ landing have a strong impact on aviation\ emissions and, therefore, TOCs must take into\ consideration distance clusters (short- and\ long-haul flights). The aircraft size (capacity)\ and type (freighter vs. passenger aircraft)\ are also relevant and therefore need to be\ considered as well. Finally, if Sustainable\ Aviation Fuel use is related to specified port\ pairs (chartered flights), the granularity level\ of the related TOC needs to be considered (“a\ specific vehicle type in a specific schedule.”)\ \ Transport operations can never be split\ between two different TOCs, as each\ transport operation must be allocated to one\ specific TOC. On the other hand, a TOC can\ include different energy carriers for propulsion,\ or also different types of activity with different\ transport requirements, e.g. diesel and LNG\ vehicle operations can be combined. To\ facilitate transparency, the following types of\ TOC exist, and each TOC must be identified\ as one of them:\ • TOC of freight only (general case)\ \ • TOC of freight only (general case)\ • TOC of freight only with multi-temperature\ \ • TOC of freight only with multi-temperature\ vehicles\ • TOC of vehicles with passenger vehicles\ \ HOC factors. For the identification of a HOC,\ the factors that affect the scale, composition\ and characteristics of the operations carried\ out need to be taken into consideration, e.g.:\ • Number and type of hub operations\ \ TOCs should reflect entire round trips\ made by the vehicles. The round trip does\ not require an immediate return to the point of\ origin, and it can include a group of sequential\ journeys that start and end at the same point.\ • Include all loaded as well as empty trips\ \ • TOC of any other case\ \ • Inbound and outbound transport mode and\ relevance of intermodal change;\ • Any processes essential for maintaining the\ \ • Any processes essential for maintaining the\ condition of the freight or ensuring passenger\ health and safety;\ • Nature of freight handled (e.g. palletized,\ \ • Include all loaded as well as empty trips\ which are part of the round trip to balance\ out GHG emissions within asymmetric\ transport flows.\ • Where empty containers or pallets are\ \ • Nature and consistency of the hub operations\ included in the HOC, e.g. electrified or nonelectrified;\ • Inbound and outbound transport mode and\ \ • Number and type of hub operations\ contributing to the HOC, e.g. handling of\ freight, (un)loading, (de)boarding, transport\ on-site;\ • Nature and consistency of the hub operations\ \ become a consignment in their own right.\ • An exception is when a vehicle or vessel is\ chartered for a one-way journey, which can\ be specifically identified within the transport\ operator’s network as well as in the\ transport purchaser’s system.\ • Pipelines are exempt from the round-trip\ \ • Nature of freight handled (e.g. palletized,\ containerized, piece good);\ • Additional, energy consuming and emission-\ \ • Additional, energy consuming and emissioncausing activities related to the operations,\ e.g. temperature control, repackaging, etc.\ \ Hub operations can never be split between\ two different HOCs, as each hub operation\ must be allocated to one specific HOC. A hub\ may perform hub operations that form part of\ a different HOC. (Further suggestions for the\ characteristics which can be used to establish\ HOCs can be found in Section 1 Chapter\ 4 “Information and Requirements for the\ Individual Transport Modes and Hubs”)\ \ * * *\ \ Data categories\ and quality\ \ The type of data used has a direct influence\ on the accuracy of the results, and therefore\ on the degree to which results can be used,\ to inform, analyze the efficiency of transport\ operations, track emission reduction actions,\ etc. It is therefore important to gather highquality, consistent data, and to specify the\ type of data and calculation approach used.\ Specific guidance on collecting high-quality\ data for transportation is provided by US EPA\ SmartWay.23\ \ In line with ISO 14083, the following data\ categories are distinguished:\ • Primary data\ \ • Primary data\ • Secondary data\ \ - Modeled data\ - Default data\ \ Primary data. Primary data is the “quantified\ value of a process or an activity from a direct\ measurement or a calculation based on direct\ measurements.”9 Good quality primary (actual)\ data is what should be used by a transport or\ logistics site operator to calculate its Scope\ 1 GHG emissions. It is also the type of data\ transport buyers should aim to collect from\ carriers for their Scope 3 emissions accounting.\ Primary data can range from highly precise\ information, such as from fuel receipts or annual\ energy consumption spend, to aggregated values\ that reflect energy consumption or emission\ intensity for a year’s worth of vehicle movements.\ \ Secondary data. Secondary data is all data that\ is not primary data. It can be differentiated into\ modeled data and default data.\ \ Modeled data Modeled data is data which\ is established using a model “that takes into\ account primary data and/or GHG emission\ relevant parameters of a transport operation\ or hub operation.”10 Companies and tool\ providers model energy consumption and\ emissions using available information on types\ of goods consignment sizes, journey origin,\ destination and intermediate handling locations,\ and any information about the vehicles used,\ load factors, etc. The accuracy of the model’s\ outputs will depend on the level of detail that\ is available about the transport operation and\ the assumptions made, as well as the model’s\ algorithms. In general, assumptions that are\ made that rely on default data, rather than\ primary data, will increase the uncertainty of the\ output. It is important to ensure that the methods\ embedded into tools for modeling data are\ aligned with the GLEC Framework.\ \ Secondary\ Data\ \ Modeled\ Data\ \ The GLEC Framework is intended to align\ methodological aspects as far as is possible. GHG\ emission calculations rely not only upon a sound\ methodology but also good quality input data.\ The type of data used can influence the accuracy\ of the results, and the degree to which results can\ be used to inform and track emission reduction\ actions. Thus, it is important to specify the type of\ data and calculation approach used.\ It is recommended that companies consider\ \ default factors. Specific information about the\ vehicle fleet, energy type, temperature control,\ topography, etc. can improve accuracy. The source\ of any default data used must be clearly specified.\ \ It is recommended that companies consider\ appointing appropriately qualified, independent\ third-party entities to conduct assurance of the\ input data and any assumptions embedded within\ \ The GLEC Framework is intended to align\ methodological aspects as far as is possible. GHG\ emission calculations rely not only upon a sound\ methodology but also good quality input data.\ The type of data used can influence the accuracy\ of the results, and the degree to which results can\ be used to inform and track emission reduction\ actions. Thus, it is important to specify the type of\ data and calculation approach used.\ \ * * *\ \ Calculation of the\ TCE emissions\ \ Calculation of the activity of the TCE\ \ Identification of the applicable emission intensity for the TCE\ \ Calculation of the TCE’s emission\ \ To calculate the emissions of an individual\ TCE, you multiply the transport activity or\ hub operation activity by the GHG emission\ intensity of the related TOC or HOC\ respectively:\ \ The approaches for transport activities and\ hub operation activities in this last step vary\ \ slightly, since the calculation of emissions\ of transport operation TCEs often requires\ a correction by a DAF. This DAF is needed\ when a different distance type is used for the\ distance of the quantification of the TCE’s\ transport activity and for the quantification of\ the emission intensity of the related TOC.\ \ For transport activity TCEs:\ \ GHG\ emission of\ the transport\ activity of this\ TCE\ \ Transport\ activity in\ tkm\ \ GHG\ emission\ intensity of\ the related\ TOC\ \ DAF\ between\ transport distance\ type used for\ the TCE and\ TOC\ \ For hub operation activities TCEs:\ \ GHG\ emission of a\ specific hub\ operation\ activity of the\ TCE\ \ Specific hub\ operation activity\ of the TCE\ \ GHG\ emission\ intensity of\ the related\ TOC\ \ * * *\ \ The GHG emissions of transport operations\ have two components: an energy provision\ component and an operation component. This\ allows the operation and energy provision\ emissions to be calculated separately. To\ obtain the total GHG emissions of the TCE,\ the GHG emissions of the transport operation\ and the GHG emission of the energy provision\ are added together.\ \ ISO References: 10 Calculation of GHG emission for a transport\ TCE and 11 Calculation of GHG emission for a hub TCE\ \ For transport activity TCEs:\ \ Total GHG\ emissions of\ the transport\ activity TCE\ \ Similarly, if you want to calculate the\ emissions of an entire organization, you\ add all transport chains that constitute your\ network.\ \ Adding up of transport chains\ to networks and transport use\ of organizations\ \ Calculations such as these can be used for\ corporate reporting or for a defined subset\ of your business, by aggregating different\ transport chains and the relevant elements (i.e.\ transport and hub TCEs.) What is important,\ is that GHG emissions for each TCE are\ calculated individually first.\ \ Colour and shape codes\ \ GHG emission\ of the energy\ provision for the\ transport\ activity\ this TCEof\ \ ISO References: 12 Results, including 12.1 For one transport chain\ and 12.2 For a set of transport chains\ \ | Colour and shape codes | |\ | --- | --- |\ | Blues-Transport related calculations and valuesOranges-Hub-related calculations and valuesYellows-Energy-provision related valuesGreen-Transport chain related valuesGreys-All other: grey or white | |\ | ☐Sums and multiplication products of your calculations○Values to be sourced | |\ \ GHG emission\ of the energy\ provision for the\ operation\ activity of\ this TCE\ \ Total GHG\ emissions\ of the hub\ operation TCE\ \ GHG emissions\ of the energy\ provision of all\ hub operation\ activities of the\ transport chain\ \ * * *\ \ Chapter 3\ Steps for establishing\ the emission intensity\ 1of a TOC or a HOC\ \ A TOC is a group of transport operations that share similar\ characteristics and a HOC is a group of hub operations that\ share similar characteristics, in a defined period, which is\ typically one calendar year unless specified otherwise and\ explained in the related reporting. Establishing the emission\ intensity for TOCs and HOCs therefore contributes to improving\ the transparency of the efficiency of your transport operations.\ \ For calculating a TCE’s GHG emissions, The following steps are required to establish a\ you need to establish the related TOC or TOC’s or HOC’s emission intensity:\ HOC emission intensity (see also Chapter 3\ \ 1. Establish the TOC’s or HOC’s activity data.\ 2. Establish the energy use, related emission\ factors and calculation of the GHG emissions\ of the TOC or HOC.\ 3. Calculate the emission intensity of the TOC\ \ units) for transport\ • CO2e per tonne throughput (or equivalent\ units) for freight hub throughput\ \ of the TOC or HOC.\ 3\. Calculate the emission intensity of the TOC\ or a HOC\ \ * * *\ \ Establishing the\ TOC’s or HOC’s\ activity data\ \ General approach\ \ Multi-temperature\ \ Calculation of the\ GHG emissions of\ the TOC\ \ Combined freight and\ passenger transport\ \ Freight only\ \ Freight and\ passengers\ \ Calculation of the\ GHG emissions\ intensity of the TOC\ \ Data sources\ for calculating\ emission\ intensities\ \ B. Calculating data with a model\ You can find detailed information on\ calculating GHG emission intensities by\ means of a model in Section 3 Module\ 2 “Default Energy Efficiency and CO e 2\ Intensity.”\ \ A. Using primary data\ When using primary data, the following\ steps must be carried out:\ \ 1. All transport and hub operations that\ are performed and are related to the GHG\ emission quantification need to be identified.\ 2. The TOCs and HOCs for these operations\ must be established.\ 3. For each TOC and HOC the GHG activity\ data from each GHG source (quantity of\ energy consumed, refrigerant leakage, etc.)\ must be identified, quantified and converted\ to GHG emissions; the sum of all the GHG\ sources equals the GHG emissions for\ the TOC or HOC. Then the corresponding\ transport or hub operation activity for the\ TOC or HOC are calculated, and finally the\ GHG emission intensity for the TOC or HOC.\ For a detailed description of the modespecific quantification actions at TOC\ or HOC level see Section 1 Chapter 4\ “Information and Requirements for\ Individual Transport Modes and Hubs.”\ \ D. Collecting a value from a contracted\ operator that has used primary data (A)\ or modeled data (B)\ GHG emission intensity values may also\ be collected from contracted operators\ that have applied option A Using primary\ data preferably or alternatively option B\ Calculating data with a model.\ \ * * *\ \ Establishing a TOC’s\ or HOC’s activity data\ \ Calculation of the\ GHG emissions\ intensity of the TOC\ \ Establishing the transport activity for\ a TOC – general approach\ \ To establish the emission intensity of a TOC\ for a given period (usually one calendar\ year), first, you need to identify the transport\ activity of this TOC. The second step is to\ generate the emission intensity. Generally,\ the freight transport activity of a TOC is\ calculated by:\ • multiplying the mass of each consignment\ \ • multiplying the mass of each consignment\ with its specific transport activity distance\ • adding up all the results of above\ \ • adding up all the results of above\ multiplication for each shipment of the\ TOC during a given period (usually one\ calendar year).\ \ (see also Info box “Demonstration of tonnekilometer (tkm) calculation approaches”.)\ \ Establishing the transport activity for\ a TOC for multi-temperature vehicles\ \ Where a TOC has different temperature\ zones, even within one vehicle, you must\ calculate a freight transport activity for\ each temperature condition separately.\ Therefore, the freight transport activity per\ temperature condition is calculated first,\ before adding the transport activities of the\ different temperature conditions to build the\ transport activity of the specific TOC.\ \ * * *\ \ Establishing transport activity\ for a TOC for combined\ passenger and freight transport\ \ In the case of a TOC of vehicles or vessels\ that combine passenger and freight transport,\ whether they include passenger vehicles or\ not, the calculation of the transport activity\ can be done in the following steps:\ \ 1. Each relevant type of sub-category to the\ \ 2. Each relevant type of sub-category to the\ TOC needs to be identified, e.g. passengers\ with their luggage, cars, motorcycles, empty\ trailers, loaded trailers.\ \ 3. If possible, also here you should use\ \ \ trailers, loaded trailers.\ 2\. If possible, also here you should use\ primary data in the form of actual mass of\ passengers and vehicles. Where this is not\ possible, you can apply the conventionally\ used equivalent of 100kg per passenger,\ including baggage. Similarly, default values\ \ for different vehicles can be used where their\ specific mass is not available. (For more detail\ see Section 1 Chapter 4 “Information and\ Requirements for the Individual Transport\ Modes and Hubs.”)\ 3\. For each sub-category identified, the\ \ 3. For each sub-category identified, the\ transport activity distance needs to be\ multiplied by the number of entities of that\ specific type, e.g. number of passengers\ multiplied by number of the related transport\ activity data. The result equals the transport\ activity of this specific type of entity.\ 4. Finally, the transport activities of all types of\ entity are added and comprises the transport\ activity of the combined transport.\ \ Total transport\ activity of all\ entities of a\ combined\ passenger and\ freight transport\ \ ISO References: 8.4 Calculation of transport activity for the TOC, in\ particular 8.4.4. Transport activity of a TOC of freight – General case,\ 8.4.6 Transport activity of a TOC of Freight with multi-temperature\ vehicles, 8.4.7 Transport activity of a TOC with passengers and freight\ (whether including passenger vehicles or not)\ \ Total transport\ activity of a\ specific entity\ of a combined\ passenger\ and freight\ transport\ \ Total transport\ activity of entity\ A of a combined\ pasenger and\ freight transport\ \ Transport activity\ per single unit of\ a specific entity\ \ Quantity of\ units of the\ specific entity\ \ Total transport\ activity of entity\ n of a combined\ passenger and\ freight transport\ \ Total transport\ activity of entity\ B of a combined\ passenger and\ freight transport\ \ Establishing the operation activity\ for a HOC\ \ When establishing the emission intensity of\ a HOC, the approach is similar to the one\ described for TOCs. It is particularly important\ to include the total consumption of each\ energy carrier and refrigerant. In the case of\ different hub operation activities that generate\ GHG emissions, activity data for each of these\ hub operation activities must be quantified\ separately. Once you have established the\ activity data of the individual hub operations,\ their sum comprises the activity data of the\ entire HOC.\ \ Similarly, where hub operations are not\ homogeneous and different sub-categories\ of hub operations can be distinguished, e.g.\ due to different temperatures in temperaturecontrolled operations or due to combined\ freight or passengers operations within a HOC,\ a two-step process is needed. First you need\ to establish the corresponding hub operation\ activity data per specific sub-category of the\ operation, then calculate individual emission\ intensify for each of these activities.\ Section 1 Chapter 4 “Information and\ Requirements for the Individual Transport\ Modes and Hubs” gives guidance for allocating\ GHG activity data for a HOC.\ \ * * *\ \ Calculation of the GHG\ emissions of a TOC or a HOC\ \ Calculation of the\ GHG emissions\ intensity of the TOC\ \ Calculation of the GHG emissions of a TOC\ \ For the calculation of GHG emissions for a\ TOC, it must be identified as fitting into one of\ two categories:\ • The transport operations carried out are near\ \ • The transport operations carried out are near\ identical or at least show similar\ characteristics for all consignments and no\ passenger transport is included in the TOC\ • The transport operations carried out to\ \ • The transport operations carried out to\ the consignments differ and/or passenger\ transport is part of the TOC.\ \ For example, if a transport includes\ temperature-controlled operations and nontemperature-controlled operations, which in all\ other respects are similar, you must calculate\ two different GHG emissions for the TOC, as\ well as two different transport activity energy\ provision GHG emissions: one for the nontemperature-controlled vehicle operations\ of the TOC and one for the temperaturecontrolled vehicle operations. Similarly, for\ a ferry, you must establish the emissions for\ passengers and freight separately.\ \ In the first case, where the transport operations\ applied show similar characteristics for all\ consignments, you can calculate the GHG\ emissions for all operations of the TOC jointly.\ In the second case, where different transport\ operations are carried out on the consignments\ and/or passenger transport within the TOC,\ you need to calculate the emissions for each\ specific transport activity, i.e. for each subcategory, separately.\ \ You calculate the GHG emissions of a specific\ transport operation of a TOC by multiplying\ that transport activity and the related emission\ factor of the TOC.\ \ GHG emissions\ of a TOC\ for a specific\ activity\ \ Quantitiy of the\ specific transport\ activity of the\ TOC in tkm\ \ GHG emission\ factor for the\ specific transport\ activity of the\ TOC\ \ You calculate the emissions of the energy\ In the first case, where the transport operations provision of a specific transport activity of a\ TOC by multiplying the transport activity and\ the energy provision GHG emission factor for\ the specific activity of the TOC:\ \ GHG emissions\ of the energy\ provision for a\ specific transport\ \ activity of a TOC\ \ Total GHG\ emissions of\ the TOC\ \ Sum of all GHG\ emissions of\ the transport\ activities of the\ TOC\ \ GHG\ emission factor\ of the energy\ provision for the\ specific transport\ activity of the\ TOC\ \ Once the GHG emissions of all transport\ activities of the TOC have been calculated and\ the GHG emissions of all energy provisions\ for the transport activities of the TOC are\ established, the sum of them constitutes the\ total GHG emissions of the TOC:\ \ * * *\ \ Calculation of the GHG emissions of a HOC\ \ Similarly, for the calculation of GHG emissions\ for a HOC, it must be identified as fitting into\ one of two categories:\ • The hub operations carried out are near\ \ • The hub operations carried out are near\ identical or at least show similar\ characteristics for all consignments and no\ passenger transport is included in the HOC\ • The hub operations carried out to the\ \ • The hub operations carried out to the\ consignments differ (e.g. different\ temperature conditions apply) and/or\ passenger transport is part of the TOC\ \ In the first case, if the operations carried out\ within the HOC are homogeneous, you can\ calculate the emissions of the HOC for all\ operations jointly. In the second case, you\ must differentiate individual types of activities\ and calculate the emissions for the operations\ applied to the freight and for the operations\ applied to the passengers separately. For\ hub operations with different temperature\ conditions, you must establish GHG emissions\ and GHG emission intensities separately for\ each temperature condition.\ \ You calculate GHG emissions for the hub\ operation activities by multiplying the quantity\ of the specific hub operation activity by the\ related GHG emission factor for the specific\ hub operation.\ \ GHG emissions\ of a TOC\ for a specific\ hub operation\ activity\ \ Quantitiy of a\ specific HOC\ hub operation\ activity\ \ Once the GHG emissions of all hub operation activities of\ the HOC have been calculated and the GHG emissions\ of the energy provision of all these hub operation\ activities of the HOC are established, the sum of them\ constitutes the total GHG emissions of the HOC:\ \ GHG emission\ factor for the\ specific HOC\ hub operation\ activity\ \ To establish the GHG emissions related to\ the energy provision of specific hub operation\ activities of a HOC, you multiply the specific\ hub operation activity by the related energy\ provision GHG emission factor:\ \ GHG emissions\ of the energy\ provision of a\ specific hub\ operation activity\ of a HOC\ \ Sum of all GHG\ emissions of\ the energy\ provision for the\ hub operation\ activities of the\ HOC\ \ Sum of all GHG\ emissions of the\ hub operation\ activities of the\ HOC\ \ Quantitiy of a\ specific hub\ operation activity\ of the HOC\ \ GHG emission\ factor of the\ energy provision\ for the specific\ hub operation\ activity of the\ HOC\ \ * * *\ \ Calculating GHG emission\ intensity of a TOC or a HOC\ \ must establish the GHG emission intensities\ To establish the GHG emission intensity of a separately for each temperature condition:\ TOC, you divide the total GHG emissions of the\ TOC by the total transport activity of the TOC: ISO References: 8.5 Calculation of GHG emission intensity for the TOC\ \ As with the calculation of transport activity\ distance for multi-temperature vehicles, you\ must establish the GHG emission intensities\ separately for each temperature condition:\ TOC, you divide the total GHG emissions of the\ \ ISO References: 8.5 Calculation of GHG emission intensity for the TOC\ \ The result of this calculation is expressed\ in CO2e per hub operation activity.\ \ For establishing the GHG emission\ intensity of a HOC, you divide the total\ GHG emissions of the HOC by the total\ hub operation activity of the HOC.\ \ Calculating the GHG emission\ intensity of a HOC\ \ ISO References: 9.5 Calculation of GHG emission intensity for the HOC\ \ * * *\ \ Chapter 4\ Information and requirements\ for the individual transport\ 1modes and hubs\ \ Chapter 4\ Information and requirements\ for the individual transport\ modes and hubs\ \ Click here to go back to Section 1 contents page\ \ Air\ \ Global impact\ \ Global aviation, encompassing both domestic and international\ operations for both passenger and freight transport, contributes to\ 24\ approximately 1.9% of total GHG emissions. Air transport has a\ unique interaction with the climate because the majority of emissions\ 25\ occur at cruising altitudes of 8‒12 km. The IPCC notes that high\ altitude deposition of not only CO2, but also NOx, methane, water\ vapor and ozone, contributes a climate warming impact, and can also\ 26\ seed clouds that trap heat from the earth’s surface (radiative forcing).\ \ \\mathrm{C{}\ {\\cal O}\_{2}},\ \ Aviation is the most emission-intensive mode of transportation.\ Most aviation emissions come from passenger transport,\ with freight comprising around 19% of total aviation related\ 27\ emissions. That said, aviation is expected to be one of the\ fastest growing modes of transport in the coming years, with a\ 28\ projected annual growth rate of around 3% until 2040. Between\ 2009 and 2017 the energy efficiency of aviation improved\ 29\ by 17%.\ \ * * *\ \ Achieving net zero by 2025 will require a combination\ of maximum elimination of emissions at the source,\ offsetting and carbon capture technologies.\ \ 65% Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)\ \ 13% New technology, electric and hydrogen\ \ 19% Offsets and carbon capture\ \ 3% infrastructure and operational efficiencies\ \ Figure 1\ Emission calculation for an air transport chain, including an air transport TCE (TCE 3)\ \ Emissions of example transport chain = sum of emissions of TCE1 + TCE2 +TCE3 + TCE4 + TCE5\ \ Reductions in air freight emissions are\ possible through more efficient aircraft\ concepts and engines, use of renewable\ fuels with a lower lifecycle impact (often\ referred to as SAFs), improved air traffic\ management and other optimization\ measures.30,31 However, achieving aviation\ decarbonization will be a challenge without\ a radical new aircraft engine technology.\ The lack of ready technologies has led the\ International Civil Aviation Organization\ (ICAO) to put forth the Carbon Offsetting\ and Reduction Scheme for International\ Aviation (CORSIA), which uses carbon\ offsets to mitigate climate impacts until new\ technologies are available.32\ \ Scope\ \ The GLEC Framework covers freight transport\ by any type of aircraft, including freighters and\ passenger aircraft carrying cargo in their hold\ (“belly cargo or freight.”) When assessing the\ emissions generated by air freight, the GLEC\ Framework takes into account the complete\ flight cycle of both cargo and passenger\ aircraft. This includes considering various\ activities such as taxiing, take-off, cruising\ and landing, as well as any other movements\ associated with the loading and unloading\ of freight. Neither the embedded emissions\ of producing the aircraft themselves, nor the\ emissions related to airline or airport staff, are\ included in the GHG emission calculation for\ air freight transport. Also currently excluded\ are any additional global warming impacts\ \ The services provided by the air terminal (e.g.,\ loading, unloading, cleaning, block power) are\ classified under logistics sites.\ \ Transport Operations Categories (TOCs)\ \ • A single aircraft or aircraft type on a single\ schedule: e.g., a B777-F flying FRA –\ NYK – FRA\ • A single aircraft or aircraft type in a multiple\ \ • A group of aircrafts (same aircraft type,\ mixed aircraft types) in multiple schedules:\ e.g., all freighter or all aircrafts flying\ destinations between Europe and\ North America\ \ NYK – FRA\ • A single aircraft or aircraft type in a multiple\ schedule: e.g., a (group of) B777-F flying\ destinations between Europe and North\ America\ • A group of aircrafts (same aircraft type,\ \ * * *\ \ Methodology alignment\ \ The GLEC Framework’s approach of\ allocating freight emissions of air transport\ by mass is fully compatible with the\ International Air Transport Association’s\ (IATA) Recommended Practice 1678, the US\ EPA’s 2018 SmartWay Air Carrier Partner\ Tool15 and ICAO’s CORSIA program.\ \ IATA RP167833 and RP172634\ \ • IATA has updated its emission calculation\ Guideline IATA RP1678 for freight and added\ a “Passenger CO Standard Methodology” in\ 2\ 2022 (IATA RP1726).\ • IATA’s network-based approach is in line with\ \ • IATA’s network-based approach is in line with\ the transport operation category approach.\ • IATA allows emissions to be calculated on a\ \ the transport operation category approach.\ • IATA allows emissions to be calculated on a\ weight or volume basis; for alignment with\ the GLEC Framework, weight should\ be used.\ • The allocation rule between passenger and\ \ • CORSIA requires airlines to report their\ emissions based on a standard methodology\ for calculating CO2e emissions from aviation\ fuel. This methodology is based on the ICAO\ Carbon Emissions Calculator,35 which takes\ into account factors such as energy source,\ aircraft type and flight distance.\ • CORSIA values must be scaled from CO2\ \ • CORSIA values must be scaled from CO2\ to CO2e.\ • CORSIA does not specify use of fuel life\ \ • CORSIA does not specify use of fuel life\ cycle for fossil kerosene.\ \ CORSIA32\ \ • The Monitoring, Reporting and Verification\ (MRV) procedures for CORSIA include the\ WTW approach for calculating emissions\ from aviation fuel. This requires airlines to\ report the carbon intensity of their\ aviation fuel.\ • The “CORSIA Methodology for Calculating\ \ • The “CORSIA Methodology for Calculating\ Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values” provides\ for all greenhouse gases (CO2e) related to\ biogenic and fossil energy sources.\ \ Under CORSIA, airlines are required to offset\ any emissions above the 2020 baseline\ through the purchase of carbon credits from\ approved emission reduction projects. The\ scheme is being phased in since 2021, with a\ voluntary phase from 2021 to 2026, followed\ by a mandatory phase from 2027 to 2035 for\ most countries.36\ \ For emission factors you can refer to Section 3\ Module 1 indicated factors for Jet A/A1 fuel in\ the regions North America and Europe.\ \ * * *\ \ Requirements for air\ transport calculations\ \ Use the actual consignment mass,\ not proxies like chargeable weight.\ \ Consignment mass\ \ Distance\ \ • Distance is measured as the GCD\ between the origin and destination airport\ for each flight leg.\ • If the actual distance is used in the\ \ • If the actual distance is used in the\ calculation, you need to apply a DAF to\ prevent underreporting. The DAF must be\ calculated on best available data regarding\ maneuvering, taxiing and other deviations,\ and needs to be disclosed alongside the\ provided values in the reporting. In case\ the specific information for the DAF is not\ available, you use the ratio of (GCD + 95km)\ / GCD\ In this case, the 95km represent the\ \ • The latitude and longitude of the origin\ and destination can be taken either from\ aerodrome data published in the national\ Aeronautic Information Publication or from a\ source using such data (e.g., ICAO).\ • If intermediate stops are made, distance\ \ • For Scope 3 calculations, it can be difficult\ to know whether there were any intermediate\ stops on the flight path. If distance is taken\ between origin and destination, not including\ intermediate stops, this will lead to systemic\ underestimation of distance and emissions.\ Therefore, you should aim to obtain the\ flight numbers for each journey, as this is the\ most reliable approach, even if getting this\ information can be complex.\ \ Default factors\ \ • The GLEC Framework provides the following\ air transport energy efficiency and emission\ intensity (see Section 3 Module 2 Default\ Energy Efficiency and CO e Intensity Factors\ 2\ for more information):\ \ - The overall IATA industry average.\ \ • Jet fuel A (kerosene) is the assumed\ energy source for air transport.\ • Aviation gas is also used in some cases,\ \ - The overall IATA industry average.\ - A matrix showing notional short- and\ \ Energy source\ \ - The overall IATA industry average.\ - A matrix showing notional short- and\ long-haul values for passenger planes and\ freighters, as well as an average value\ that can be used when the nature of the air\ transport is unknown.\ • If flights include intermediate stops, you\ \ • If flights include intermediate stops, you\ should apply the appropriate default\ factor for each flight leg’s origin and\ destination points.\ \ Transport activity for passenger\ aircraft with belly freight\ \ • In the case of TOCs in which the main\ function is passenger transportation\ with belly freight, apply the ISO provisions\ on combined transport of freight and\ passengers for calculation of transport\ activity (see also Chapter 3 Calculation Steps\ “Establishing transport activity for a TOC for\ combined passenger and freight transport”.)\ • To consider freight and passenger transport\ \ • To consider freight and passenger transport\ together, two options are available:\ \ - The first option is based on mass and\ \ - The first option is based on mass and\ uses the total passenger mass, including\ baggage, and actual freight mass for\ both allocation and calculation of GHG\ emission intensity.\ \ - The second option is only for use in\ \ \ emission intensity.\ \ - The second option is only for use in\ situations when data needed for the first\ option is not available. In this case you\ convert the cargo mass into passenger\ equivalents using a conversion value\ of 100kg = 1 passenger equivalent and\ then allocate the emissions according to\ proportional share the total number of share\ of passengers and passenger equivalents.\ The emission intensity can then be\ calculated using the known cargo mass\ combined with the transport activity distance.\ • The mass of passengers encompasses\ \ * * *\ \ Cable Cars\ \ Global impact\ \ Cable cars are transportation systems for people, freight or\ both combined. Cable cars exist in the form of suspended air\ ropeways or surface bound ropeways. Whereas air ropeways\ usually have cabins or buckets for the transport of passenger and\ freight suspended from a cable, surface ropeways are funiculars\ or bucket systems equipped with either wheels or rails.\ \ In all cable cars, the movement is generated\ by a cable or rope that pulls the transporting\ unit. The cables are typically powered by an\ electric motor, and the gondolas or buckets\ can either be fixed to the cables or detachable,\ depending on the system. They are often used\ in mountainous or difficult-to-access terrain.\ In urban areas, cable car systems for both\ freight and passenger transport are used with\ positive environmental and social impacts (e.g.,\ Medellin, Columbia or Graz, Austria).37 The\ dual use of the system as used in e.g., Graz\ generates synergies such as the bundling of\ traffic and avoidance of unnecessary journeys\ and displacement effects. Cable car stations\ can serve as multifunctional operating points\ for both freight logistics and passenger traffic.\ \ The GHG emissions of cable cars vary\ depending on several factors, such as the\ type of cable car system, the energy source\ used to power the system, and the volume\ and weight of the materials being transported.\ If a cable car system is powered by electricity\ generated from renewable sources such as\ hydroelectric, wind or solar power, the GHG\ emissions will be significantly lower than if the\ system is powered by fossil-fuel energy.\ \ Scope\ \ The content of this section is applicable to all\ cable car systems that consume energy and\ are primarily used for the transportation of\ freight. Regardless of whether the cable car\ system consists of multiple vehicles or a single\ wagon only, it must be viewed as a unified\ transport system, including its infrastructure.\ Vehicles that move on cables, but without the\ transmission of movement through at least one\ cable, do not fall under the definition of cable\ cars. Similarly, vertical elevators are excluded\ from the definition of cable cars.\ \ Transport Operation Categories (TOCs)\ \ 3. Reversible bi-cable (Jigback): this system\ uses two separate cables that run parallel\ to each other. The cabins or containers are\ attached to the cables by means of detachable\ carriers, and the cables are driven by motors at\ opposite ends of the cable car route.\ \ When evaluating the GHG emissions of cable\ cars used for freight transport, it is possible to\ use either primary measured data or secondary\ modeled data. Often, a combination of the two\ is necessary and used.\ \ three types:\ \ 1. Unidirectional Monocable: this system uses a\ single cable to transport goods in one direction.\ The cable is supported by towers and driven\ by a motor located at one end of the cable\ car line. Goods are loaded onto fixed-grip or\ detachable-grip buckets that travel along the\ cable.\ 2. Unidirectional bi-cable: this system uses\ \ cable.\ 2\. Unidirectional bi-cable: this system uses\ two cables, with the cabins or containers\ attached to one of the cables by means of a\ grip or carrier. The cables are driven by motors\ at opposite ends of the cable car route, and\ the cabins or containers move in one direction\ along the cables. This system can be further\ divided into the variations Material 2S and\ Material 3S, differing in how the cabins or\ containers are attached to the cables and the\ configuration of the cables themselves.\ \ Requirements for cable car\ transport calculations\ \ Distance\ \ • The transport activity distance should be\ based on the SFD and usually no DAF is\ required, as the route of the cabins or\ buckets is defined by the ropes of their\ system and deviations are impossible.\ • If two or more cable cars are linked to each\ \ • If two or more cable cars are linked to each\ other to one transport system, each of the\ constituting sections shall be considered as\ one cable car, even if they ensure the\ continuity of the travel of the vehicle\ they connect.\ \ * * *\ \ Chapter 4\ Information and requirements\ for the individual transport\ modes and hubs\ \ Hubs\ \ Global impact\ \ Hubs are locations where passengers and/or freight is handled from one\ vehicle or transport mode to another before, after or between different\ 9\ \ transport operations of a transport chain. Hubs for freight, also known\ as “logistics hubs”, are a vital backbone to supply chains. Logistics\ hubs are where freight is stored and processed, and where myriad forms\ of transport intersect. Logistics hubs are often close to populations,\ emphasizing the importance of both the climate and health impacts of\ their activities. Given their integral role in the booming logistics sector,\ their impact is only expected to grow in the coming years. Thus, it will be\ all the more important in the future to align other phases of the life cycle\ 38\ of logistics hubs with sustainability topics in addition to operation.\ \ Logistics hubs are a diverse group of facilities scattered around\ the globe; their collective impact is not well-understood. The World\ Economic Forum estimated that warehouse and sorting facilities\ 39\ alone can comprise up to 13% of supply chain emissions.\ \ A company’s use of logistics hubs, and the\ subsequent emissions arising from operation,\ will vary based on the modes of transport,\ refrigeration needs and region. Therefore, the\ relative impact of emissions from logistics\ hubs will vary by company and product and\ should be assessed accordingly in order to\ create transparency about the performance of\ logistics hubs in a first step and to understand\ other overarching interdependencies in\ \ subsequent steps. This includes, for example,\ the continuous evaluation of measures that can\ reduce the environmental impact of hubs.\ \ Logistics hubs are the nodes, sites, facilities,\ centers and depots that connect transport\ legs (within and between corresponding\ transport modes) or are the start or end point\ of a transport chain.42 Examples for logistics\ hubs are facilities such as warehouses,\ consolidation/fulfilment centers, distribution\ centers, and cross-docking sites or micro\ depots/city hubs as well terminals at maritime\ or inland ports, freight and intermodal terminals\ or cargo terminals at airports. Logistics hubs\ consist of own transport chain elements\ (TCE). So the boundary for emissions from\ logistics hubs begins when the consignment is\ unloaded from the inbound vehicle or vessel,\ and ends when the freight is either handed over\ to the recipient or reloaded onto the outbound\ vehicle or vessel.\ \ Scope\ \ The GLEC Framework considers emissions from\ logistics hubs as those emitted by the fuel and\ electricity used to unload/load or move freight\ at the hub, and direct losses of refrigerants used\ in temperature control equipment. This includes\ energy used for onsite vehicles, technical\ equipment for handling freight, lighting, heating/\ cooling (for facilities and reefers), weigh\ stations, onsite server rooms and administrative\ facilities related to freight movement at the hub,\ and other freight-related activities. Emissions\ linked to energy supply for onsite vehicles and\ machinery such as cranes, reach stackers, forklift trucks, shuttles that transport employees\ onsite, diesel generators and shore power to\ vessels are included. The energy and refrigerant\ use of inbound and outbound transport to or\ from the hub is not included in the logistics\ hubs’ emissions, those are covered by the\ corresponding transport TCE. The upstream\ emissions related to infrastructure, vehicles\ and material handling equipment are not\ included, nor are Scope 3 emissions resulting\ from employee commuting and business travel.\ Emissions related to self-driving cargo, e.g. in\ roll on, roll off (RoRo) terminals are not included\ in logistics hubs’ emissions.\ \ * * *\ \ (HOCs), which take into account different levels\ of granularity on the one hand, e.g. HOC of a\ single hub or specific hub types in the network,\ and factors that affect the scale, composition\ and characteristics of the operations carried\ out on the other. Thus, any single hub operation\ shall always be considered in the context of the\ overall system in which it takes place. Finally,\ a HOC is the summary of hub operations with\ similar characteristics in a defined time period\ (up to one year).\ \ HOCs\ \ Recommended clusters for HOC are\ based on9\ • Processes: freight transshipment only,\ \ • Processes: freight transshipment only,\ passenger transfer only, combined\ passenger/freight transfer, freight\ transshipment and storage\ • freight types: average/mixed, containerized\ \ • freight types: average/mixed, containerized\ or swap bodies, palletized, break bulk/\ piece goods, dry bulk, liquid bulk, vehicle\ transport, other and\ • conditions: ambient, temperature controlled\ \ Methodology alignment\ \ The Fraunhofer IML “Guide for Greenhouse\ Gas Emissions Accounting at Logistics Hubs”\ provides detailed instructions on accounting for\ logistics hubs.40 The method was developed\ jointly in collaboration with SFC and EcoTransIT\ World, adapted to ISO 14083 and informed this\ version of the Framework.\ \ • conditions: ambient, temperature controlled\ \ Requirements for logistics\ hubs calculations\ \ Shipment mass\ \ Allocation\ \ For post and parcel operations, where\ knowledge of individual items’ mass is limited,\ the quantity of freight may be the number\ of items.\ \ Wherever possible, allocation should be\ avoided by more detailed data gathering.\ You might not have access to detailed hub\ operations activity in cases when multiple\ services with different characteristics are\ fulfilled by a hub. In those cases, you can\ \ Default values\ \ allocate GHG emissions considering specific\ characteristics. When handling involves\ ambient and refrigerated freight at a hub,\ the energy consumption for cooling, and\ the leakage of refrigerants, allocate overall\ emissions between these two characteristics.\ In some cases, it may be difficult to split\ electricity and fuel consumption for freight and\ non-freight related activities. In these cases,\ logistics hub operators are encouraged to\ make these calculations based on the best\ available information and transparently record\ any potential anomalies when reporting.\ For logistics hubs that are operated jointly by\ more than one operator, allocation of emissions\ should be based on the throughput tonnage by\ each operator separately.\ \ Further allocation may be necessary if\ corresponding separate data acquisition is not\ possible.\ \ The selected allocation principles shall remain\ constant over time and shall be documented\ transparently, e.g. using the amount of freight\ to allocate electricity consumption for lighting\ to specific functional areas.\ \ The operational data for hubs should be\ aggregated over periods of up to one year. This\ is to remove seasonal fluctuations resulting e.g.\ from heating or lighting, or any transient impact\ on long-term trends.\ \ Time period\ \ * * *\ \ Inland waterways\ \ Global impact\ \ Freight transport by inland waterways comprises a relatively\ small share of the logistics sector. With approximately 50% lower\ energy consumption per tonne-kilometer of freight compared to\ road transport, it is on a par with rail transport in terms of energy\ efficiency. Due to its relatively low carbon emission intensity and role\ in reducing road congestion, inland waterways are seen as a beneficial\ option. Furthermore, inland waterways guarantee a high level of\ safety, particularly when it comes to the delivery of dangerous goods.\ Despite these benefits, inland waterway transport has experienced\ less growth and infrastructure investment than other modes, especially\ 44\ in developing countries. A boost to the investment in technologies\ for inland waterway operations could come about in the coming years,\ as the European Union has set a goal of increasing transport by inland\ waterways and short sea shipping by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by\ 45\ 2050, compared to 2015.\ \ Energy use and emissions information for\ inland waterway transportation is often\ grouped with other modes of water transport in\ statistical publications, making it hard to isolate\ trends.46 Nevertheless, the GLEC Framework\ default values suggest that, depending on the\ vehicle or vessel used, inland waterways can\ offer a low energy, low emission alternative\ particularly for medium and long-distance\ transport.\ \ Further improvements of efficiency of inland\ waterway transport can be gained through\ slow-steaming and optimized logistics\ operations. Energy-efficient power and\ propulsion systems, streamlined hulls and\ superstructures, and alternative energy\ sources, such as biodiesel, electricity or\ hydrogen, present practical near-term\ solutions.47 A few cutting-edge propulsion\ technologies, such as fuel cell hybrid drive\ systems, may also soon be on the market.48\ \ Inland waterway transport refers to freight\ movement along stretches of water that are\ not part of the sea, such as rivers, lakes,\ canals and estuaries.49 The GLEC Framework\ v3 includes, like ISO 14083, all types of inland\ waterway vessels including barges, coupled\ convoys, pushed convoys, tankers and\ container vessels. Freight types considered are\ dry and bulk, containerized freight, and mass\ and volume-limited general freight.\ \ Emissions related to buildings and equipment\ used to load or unload cargo are classified\ under logistics sites and included in the\ HOC emissions.\ \ Scope\ \ TOCs\ \ To cluster transport services with similar\ emission intensities, it is recommended\ to structure the TOCs based on a suitable\ combination of influencing factors for inland\ waterway freight transport, based on factors\ such as vessel size category, vessel size\ category and configuration, condition and\ waterway type:9\ \ Freight type\ • Dry bulk\ \ • Liquid bulk\ • Containerized\ • Mass-limited, general freight\ \ • Mass-limited, general freight\ • Volume-limited, general freight\ \ • < 50 m\ • 50 m to 80 m\ \ * * *\ \ Vessel configuration\ • Individual vessel\ \ • Individual vessel\ • Pushed convoy\ \ • Pushed convoy\ \ • Canal\ • River\ \ Condition\ • Ambient\ \ • Ambient\ • Temperature-controlled\ \ • Temperature-controlled\ \ Waterway type\ • Canal\ \ • River\ • Lake\ \ • Lake\ \ Methodology alignment\ \ In general, inland waterway emissions\ accounting follows the principles developed\ by the maritime sector. The GLEC Framework\ is in alignment with the principles of the\ International Maritime Organization (IMO)\ Energy Efficiency Operation Index (EEOI)\ guidelines and the US EPA SmartWay Barge\ Carrier Tool.\ \ IMO EEOI17\ \ • SmartWay Barge Carrier Tool15\ • SmartWay emission results are expressed\ \ • SmartWay Barge Carrier Tool\ • SmartWay emission results are expressed\ as TTW, CO2; therefore, the WTT emissions\ must be added and the result must be scaled\ to a CO2e basis for alignment with the GLEC\ Framework.\ \ • Carrier-specific values are available for a\ small set of companies operating in North\ America.\ • SmartWay intensity values are reported as\ \ • SmartWay intensity values are reported as\ CO2/ton-mile – the energy consumption\ is already converted to CO2 using standard\ emission factors supplied by SmartWay.\ • Conversion from US tons to metric tons\ \ \\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\ \ • Conversion from US tons to metric tons\ may be needed to ensure consistency\ of reporting.\ \ Requirements for inland\ waterway transport calculations\ \ Shipment mass\ \ • Use actual mass of freight.\ • For containerized transport, an alternative\ \ • In cases where actual distance is not\ available, distance for inland waterway\ transport should be either the SFD, taking into\ account the inland waterway network, or\ the GCD.\ • The limited number of route options available\ \ • The ideal distance data is taken from the\ vessel’s log book.\ • Other options may include distance planning\ \ Distance\ \ • Use actual mass of freight.\ • For containerized transport, an alternative\ parameter such as TEU may be used in\ place of the mass of freight (See also\ SECTION 1 Chapter 2 Calculation Steps).\ \ to little opportunity for deviation between\ the actual distance and the SFD. Therefore,\ you do not have to apply a DAF.\ • Appropriate distance calculators can be used\ \ Water current effects\ \ • Convert (nautical) miles to kilometers using\ factors in Annex 4 Unit Conversions.\ \ • For inland waterway transport operations,\ water direction (i.e., whether with or against\ the current) can have an important impact on\ energy consumption.\ • Any calculation of emissions shall be applied\ \ Default factors\ \ • Smart Freight Centre and STC-Nestra\ worked collaboratively with GLEC members\ to develop a new set of industry-reviewed\ default factors that accurately represent\ today’s inland waterway sector.16\ • Whilst we would always encourage you to\ \ energy consumption.\ • Any calculation of emissions shall be applied\ on a round-trip basis to average this impact\ across the transport operations.\ \ • Whilst we would always encourage you to\ use carrier-specific values, the default values\ in Module 2 provide a significant step forward\ in terms of collecting and sharing consistent\ data for a wide range of inland waterway\ vessel types.\ \ Energy sources\ \ • Marine diesel oil is the assumed energy\ source for inland waterway transport\ operations.\ • Other potential energy sources include\ \ • If there is reason to believe another energy\ source is used, i.e., through knowledge\ of operations, select the appropriate CO2e\ emissions factor and document the deviation.\ \ * * *\ \ Pipelines\ \ Global impact\ \ Pipeline transport involves the movement of a medium, such as\ liquid, gas, liquefied gas or slurry, through a system of pipes from\ one location to another. Pipelines provide an important mode\ of transportation for specific elements of the freight transport\ industry and are composed of long tubes made of steel or plastic\ and are used for transporting liquids or gases over long distances\ with high efficiency and low environmental impact. Pipelines can\ be either underground or above ground, and their diameter can vary\ from a few centimeters to several meters, depending on the volume of\ the product being transported.\ \ Pipelines can transport large volumes over very\ long distances, which makes them ideal for\ products such as oil, gas and water. Pipelines\ are used extensively in the oil and gas industry,\ where they are used to transport crude oil,\ refined petroleum products and natural gas\ from the production site to refineries and\ distribution centers. In addition to the oil and\ gas industry, pipelines are also used in the\ chemical industry to transport chemicals such\ as chlorine and ammonia.\ \ area.50 This is because building a pipeline\ causes disruption to the area, including clearing\ away plants, digging, compressing soil and\ other activities. Moreover, since pipelines are\ usually constructed in a straight line, they can\ affect different natural and climatic zones with\ diverse geological and hydrological features.\ \ of building and maintaining pipelines can be\ high, which may limit their use in some areas.\ \ Scope\ \ • When calculating GHG emissions from\ pipeline operations, the operational\ calculation is based on the energy used by\ the equipment within the pipeline network\ to move the product and maintain the\ relevant pressure level. Furthermore, direct\ fugitive GHG emissions from delivery\ systems, such as flanges, valves, unions\ and threaded connections, must also be\ taken into account.\ • When comparing pipeline transport with\ \ the processes involved in providing energy\ to the vehicles and hub equipment, are\ considered when quantifying GHG emissions\ for a transportation chain. The implication of\ this for pipeline transportation is that you\ also need to include additional processes\ such as start-up and idling of pipelines and\ cleaning and flushing operations required\ for pipeline maintenance.\ • In the case of slurry pipelines, the allocation\ \ • When comparing pipeline transport with\ other modes of transport, you should\ include the differential compression, cooling\ or heating processes, and their energy use\ and related GHG emissions in the comparison.\ • The initial compression of the medium\ \ • The initial compression of the medium\ and pumping needed for feeding the\ pipeline, located at the production site or\ at transshipment point/terminal within the\ transport chain, should be excluded from\ the GHG emissions calculation of pipeline\ transport and allocated to the hub via the\ HOC calculation.\ • When considering a TCE that involves\ \ • In the case of slurry pipelines, the allocation\ or assignment of freight mass should not\ include the weight of the transport medium,\ such as water.\ \ Requirements for pipeline\ transport calculations\ \ Mass\ \ In addition to the quantity of freight expressed\ in mass, you can use other parameters,\ e.g., volume.\ \ • The transport activity distance should be\ based on the SFD, considering the pipeline\ network, or the GCD.\ • A DAF is not required in the case of pipelines,\ \ Distance\ \ network, or the GCD.\ • A DAF is not required in the case of pipelines,\ as the limited number of route options\ available within the pipeline network leads\ to little opportunity for deviation between the\ actual distance and the SFD.\ \ * * *\ \ Rail\ \ Global impact\ \ The rail freight sector has a relatively low impact on global\ emissions compared to other modes of transportation. In 2018,\ rail freight contributed only 1% of transport GHG emissions, while\ 52\ passenger rail accounted for 4%. The use of electric rail transport,\ which makes up about 80% of passenger rail and half of freight\ movements, does not release operational CO2 emissions. As for\ the overall final energy mix of rail, diesel consumption plays a more\ prominent role in freight rail, accounting for approximately two-\ 53\ thirds of its total energy consumption worldwide in 2021.\ \ \\mathrm{C o}\_{2}\ \ To enhance efficiency and sustainability, the rail freight industry is\ embracing new technologies and operational practices, with several\ 53\ countries allocating funding for these initiatives. Electrification plays\ a significant role in reducing emissions by eliminating direct emissions\ from rail operations. The use of sustainable fuels such as biofuels is also\ increasing. The expansion of rail networks, including the establishment of\ high-speed rail links, track modernization and digitalization of signaling\ 54\ systems, improves efficiency and attractiveness of the system.\ \ The rail freight sector is expected to experience\ growth in the coming years. The US Federal\ Railroad Administration is committed to\ decreasing the carbon footprint of rail\ transportation by various strategies such as\ promoting the expansion of electrification and\ the use of sustainable fuels. Furthermore, they\ aim to expand the rail network to enhance\ efficiency for both passengers and goods\ shipments, and to implement measures to\ reduce GHG emissions from rail operations,\ maintenance and construction.55 The European\ Union has set ambitious goals of 50% growth\ of rail freight by 2030 and doubling by 2050,\ aiming to reduce GHG emissions and alleviate\ congestion on major road networks.55\ \ However, the rail freight market, particularly\ in the EU, may be directly impacted by a\ substantial increase in energy prices. Rail\ freight operators who haven’t secured sufficient\ energy purchases for 2022 and 2023 could\ face significantly higher costs in the future. This\ cost burden might potentially force operators to\ exit the market, posing a threat to the progress\ made in shifting freight to rail.57\ \ For rail transport, emissions are associated\ with the energy and/or electricity used\ to power the trains or haul cargo using\ other rail vehicles. This includes energy\ used for train propulsion supplied by hub\ operators’ systems. The GLEC Framework\ v3 also accounts for electricity transmission\ \ losses (already factored into electricity GHG\ emission factors) and energy resulting from\ brake-energy-regeneration re-injected into\ the grid. Emissions resulting from any internal\ movements within a hub’s boundaries are also\ accounted for; they are classified as logistics\ site emissions and therefore are part of a HOC.\ \ Scope\ \ TOCs for rail transport should be structured\ based on a suitable combination of the\ influencing factors given in the list below.\ \ • Long-distance freight transport:\ \ - block train\ \ TOCs\ \ - block train\ \ - single wagon\ \ - single wagon\ \ - intermodal wagon\ \ \ • Short-distance freight transport\ (feeder services)\ \ Freight type:\ • Average/mixed\ \ • Containerized/swap bodies\ • Dry bulk\ \ • Vehicle transport\ • Semi-trailers\ \ • Liquid bulk\ • Vehicle transport\ \ Condition:\ • Ambient\ • Temperature controlled\ \ * * *\ \ • Electric motor:\ \ - fixed electricity supply system\ \ Propulsion:\ • Electric motor:\ \ • Combustion engine\ • Other\ \ - fuel cell energy storage\ • Combustion engine\ \ - fixed electricity supply system\ (catenary, third rail)\ \ - on-train battery energy storage\ \ - on-train battery energy storage\ \ - fuel cell energy storage\ \ \ In addition to ISO 14083, the GLEC Framework\ v3 is compatible with the EcoTransIT World\ Methodology, recommended by the Union\ Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC). In the\ US, the US EPA, SmartWay Rail Carrier Tool\ and the information collected and published at\ federal level by the US Surface Transportation\ Board provide alternative sources of\ information in compatible format.\ \ Methodology alignment\ \ • Other\ \ EcoTransIT World58\ • The EcoTransIT World tool aligns with the\ \ • EcoTransIT allows for reporting emissions as\ both CO2/CO2e and TTW/WTW. Be sure to\ always use the values that include WTW\ and CO2e\ • EcoTransIT divides geographies by region\ \ and CO2e\ • EcoTransIT divides geographies by region\ to model the level of electrification vs diesel\ locomotives, considering the challenge of\ finding electrification data on a country level.\ \ SmartWay Rail Carrier Tool59\ • Carrier-specific CO2e intensity factors\ \ • Carrier-specific CO2e intensity factors\ are not available from SmartWay;\ however, an annual average value\ representing the emission intensity of North\ American rail companies is provided and\ may be useful for benchmarking.\ \ Requirements for rail\ transport calculations\ \ Shipment mass\ \ • For calculation of the transport activity,\ actual mass in tonnes is to be used. If this\ is not available, estimated weight based on\ the mass of the cargo can be applied. For\ containerized transport, the weight can be\ estimated based TEU.\ • GHG activity data should be calculated at\ \ estimated based TEU.\ • GHG activity data should be calculated at\ the consignment level for the freight\ transport chain using standard freight\ transport rules.\ • Average load factors for default values,\ \ transport rules.\ • Average load factors for default values,\ where no measured data is available, are not\ well-established for rail transport. EcoTransIT\ estimates load factors based on net and\ gross tonne-kilometers (or revenue and\ non-revenue tonne-kilometers) for some\ cargo types, plus standard factors for wagon\ weights and payload capacity.19 SmartWay\ provides average railcar capacity data for\ North America.59\ \ Distance\ \ • Rail transport activity should be calculated\ based on the SFD, based on the start and\ end point of the journey.\ • If you use the actual distance for the\ \ • If you use the actual distance for the\ calculation of the transport activity, further\ analysis into any possible deviation is\ needed to establish the right DAF, given\ that rail transport is very limited in the\ routing options and any deviation from the\ planned route is most probably due to\ specific reasons.\ • Rail distance can be difficult to identify.\ \ • The extent of electrification varies by region,\ being particularly common in mainland\ Europe, but can be difficult to determine if\ carrier data is not available.\ • Information on regional electrification can\ \ • Information on regional electrification can\ be found in RAIL Information System and\ Analyses (RAILISA) UIC Statistics for the\ rail sector.60\ • EcoTransIT models regional electrification\ \ • EcoTransIT models regional electrification\ values within its tool.58\ • If the train is electrified, choose the\ \ • Rail distance can be difficult to identify.\ Some rail carriers and GHG emission\ calculation tools offer a rail distance\ calculator to their customers. EcoTransIT’s\ online tool can also be used to calculate rail\ distance at no cost.\ \ • If the train is electrified, choose the\ appropriate emission factor for the original\ energy source (if known) and/or electricity\ grid factor.\ \ Considerations regarding locomotives\ and energy sources\ \ • Information on train length (and hence\ unladen weight and capacity) can be helpful\ for improving accuracy.\ • Other potential energy sources are electricity,\ \ • Other potential energy sources are electricity,\ diesel oils, LNG and biodiesel.\ \ * * *\ \ Road\ \ Global impact\ \ In terms of global transport emissions, the road sector is by far\ the biggest emitter, with passenger and freight road transport\ 61\ contributing nearly three-quarters of overall transport emissions.\ In 2021, European road freight transport increased by 6.5 %\ 62\ compared to 2020. However, the majority of global road freight\ 63\ transport growth is expected to come from non-OECD countries.\ \ The vast majority of road freight transport is powered by diesel and\ a widespread transition to electrified road transport is considered as\ 64\ essential to meet global climate targets. Electrification of short-distance\ road transport is becoming a common option, whereas electric longdistance transport is still in its infancy, with gradual commitments being\ made to scale up fleet investment.\ \ The road freight sector is highly fragmented.\ In the European Union, over 90% of road\ haulage companies have fewer than 10\ employees, and around 85% of road freight\ companies have fewer than five trucks.65\ Similarly, in the United States, the majority\ of carriers (about 91%) operate six or\ fewer trucks.66\ \ Multinational shippers and LSPs may need\ to contract with hundreds, even thousands,\ of road carriers in order to meet their global\ logistics needs. This renders the efficiency\ optimization and thus emission reduction of\ road transportation and its networks difficult,\ although green freight programs can help to\ streamline data exchange processes.\ \ Road transport refers to any freight moved\ using a road vehicle over a road network\ between a place of loading and unloading.\ Road vehicles are any vehicles for use on\ roads.67 Road transport emissions under\ the GLEC Framework pertain only to the\ fuel and/or electricity used to operate road\ freight vehicles and their onboard systems\ (e.g., for cooling). The emissions related to\ the production of road vehicles, hubs or road\ infrastructure are not included.67\ \ TOCs for road freight transport should be\ structured based on a suitable combination of\ the influencing factors given in the list below:\ \ TOCs\ \ • Liquid bulk\ • Containerized\ \ Freight type\ • Dry bulk\ \ • Dry bulk\ • Liquid bulk\ \ • Palletized\ • Vehicle transport\ \ Scope\ \ • Mass-limited, general freight (heavy cargo)\ • Volume-limited, general freight (light cargo)\ \ Condition\ • Ambient\ \ • Ambient\ • Temperature-controlled\ \ Journey type\ • Point-to-point long-haul\ \ • Point-to-point long-haul\ • Collection and delivery\ \ Contract type\ • Shared transport\ \ • Shared transport\ • Dedicated contract (charter)\ \ Additional factors can be relevant for defining\ a highly specific TOC, e.g., topography, road\ type (highway vs urban vs rural), vehicle mass\ category, wagon/trailer body type.\ \ * * *\ \ Methodology alignment\ \ In addition to ISO 14083, the GLEC Framework\ is compatible with the US EPA’s SmartWay\ Truck Carrier Tool. EPA SmartWay collects and\ shares emissions data on thousands of North\ American road carriers, which can be used with\ the GLEC Framework.\ \ SmartWay Truck Carrier Tool9\ • SmartWay emission results are expressed\ \ SmartWay Truck Carrier Tool9\ • SmartWay emission results are expressed\ as TTW, CO2; therefore, the WTT emissions\ must be added and the result must be scaled\ to a CO2e basis for alignment with the GLEC\ Framework.\ • Carrier data is reported as the average\ \ • Carrier data is reported as the average\ CO2/ton-mile for the carrier’s fleet. Carrier\ emission factors can be used with the proper\ conversions.\ • Conversion from US tons to metric\ \ • Conversion from US tons to metric\ tons may be needed to ensure consistency\ of reporting.\ • Carrier data is reported in SmartWay\ \ • Carrier data is reported in SmartWay\ using actual distance. See the tips below for\ information on converting actual to planned\ distance.\ \ Shipment mass and transport activity\ \ • For calculation of the transport activity,\ actual mass in tonnes is to be used. If this is\ not available, estimated mass of the cargo\ can be applied.\ • For containerized transport, the mass can\ \ Distance\ \ • Road transport activity should be calculated\ based on the SFD, considering the road\ network or GCD. Values for the SFD based\ on the road network can usually be sourced\ from route planning software or maps.\ • If actual distance is used as an alternative\ \ information to the reporting.\ • When actual distance is used to calculate\ GHG emission intensity, a DAF must be\ applied in the final emission calculation\ to compensate for any deviation. This DAF\ should be based on the most accurate\ information available regarding the\ distance deviation and should be relevant\ to the context of the transportation. If\ such information is not available, a general\ estimated value for the DAF may be\ used instead.\ \ • If actual distance is used as an alternative\ to SFD or GCD, e.g., to avoid toll roads or to\ reach rest points, the transport operator\ needs to inform the transport user\ accordingly and ideally also add this\ information to the reporting.\ • When actual distance is used to calculate\ \ • When shifting from transportation that uses\ energy to transportation that does not use\ any energy, such as using foot or bicycle\ delivery instead of vans/trucks for mail\ and parcel delivery, the full distance of the\ transport activity still needs to be considered\ when calculating the transport chain’s\ transport activity.\ \ Consideration of collection and\ delivery rounds\ \ Time period\ \ • To allow for seasonal impacts, the\ operational data for regular transport\ operations should be aggregated over\ one calendar year. In this way seasonal\ fluctuations and temporary impacts are\ removed and a long-term trend is identified.\ • Deviations from the general rule of annual\ \ Many road transport operations fall under\ “collection and delivery rounds” which\ involve shared transports with multiple stops\ and changing load factors. For these forms of\ transport, which are particularly common in\ urban deliveries, it is important that you ensure\ that the total energy and GHG emissions for\ each consignment are calculated based on\ its share of the transport activity. You can use\ a notional transport activity to calculate the\ individual consignment’s share of the overall\ transport activity of the entire collection\ and delivery round, based on loading and\ unloading points independent of the actual\ routing, which can vary day to day.\ \ • It is important to reflect the typical national\ biofuel blend in the emission calculation.\ • Other potential energy sources include\ \ • Deviations from the general rule of annual\ aggregation are permitted but must be noted\ and reported. Shorter aggregation periods\ may be more relevant for road transport\ operations due to their short duration and\ high frequency. An example of where an\ alternative time period can be appropriate\ is when a transport service is only provided\ during a specific time of year.\ \ • Diesel is the assumed energy source type\ for the majority of road freight transport and\ the majority of default emission intensities\ provided in Module 2 are calculated on\ this basis.\ • It is important to reflect the typical national\ \ • Deviations from the general rule of annual\ aggregation are permitted but must be noted\ and reported. Shorter aggregation periods\ may be more relevant for road transport\ operations due to their short duration and\ high frequency. An example of where an\ alternative time period can be appropriate\ is when a transport service is only provided\ during a specific time of year.\ Energy sources\ \ • Other potential energy sources include\ biodiesel, electricity, hydrogen, compressed\ natural gas (CNG), LNG and gasoline.\ \ Post and parcel services require a different\ approach. Apart from tracked systems that\ are used for high value individual items, it\ is common for mail items and small parcels\ not to be tracked in such bulk distribution\ systems; where that is the case, a per-item\ emission calculation is a more practical\ approach. Again, it is important that you\ specify which approach was used in the\ reporting and explain any deviations from the\ commonly used method.\ \ * * *\ \ Sea\ \ Global impact\ \ Maritime transportation accounts for 80‒90% of global trade68\ and is responsible for about 30% of the global logistics sector’s\ emissions. As the demand for sea transport continues to rise, there\ is a significant increase in GHG emissions, which grew by 10.1%\ 69\ between 2012 and 2018, reaching a staggering 1,076 million tonnes.\ Despite facing a temporary setback during the COVID-19 pandemic,\ sea transport has resumed its growth trajectory, experiencing a\ 71\ further 4.7% increase between 2020 and 2021, with most of the\ increase coming from container ships, dry bulk carriers and general\ 69\ cargo vessels.\ \ Innovative energy sources for sea transport,\ such as electric, hydrogen fuel cell,\ innovative sail systems, ammonia and\ biofuel technologies, are currently under\ development. These emerging technologies\ appear promising for reducing emissions\ and fostering sustainability in maritime\ transportation. Nevertheless, shipbuilding\ volumes remain low, and one of the most\ successful approaches to emission reduction\ at present is the operational practice of slow\ steaming. By reducing a ship’s speed by 10%,\ emissions can be decreased by 27%.71, 72\ \ Sea transport is the movement of goods\ on seagoing vessels either wholly or\ partly at sea.74 Seagoing vessels include\ floating marine structures with one or more\ surface displacement hulls. Cargo ships are\ responsible for transporting general goods,\ while tankers are specialized in carrying liquid\ cargo such as oil and gas. Container ships are\ designed to transport standardized containers.\ Bulk carriers handle the transportation of\ commodities like grains, coal and iron-ore.73\ \ All forms of sea transportation that consume\ energy for the primary purpose of transporting\ freight are captured in emission accounting\ under this guidance, in line with ISO 14083.\ These include emissions linked to energy\ consumption for both propulsion of the\ vessel and the maintenance of the freight\ in specific conditions (e.g., cooled or\ temperature controlled).\ \ Scope\ \ Whenever the vessel is in port or any other\ location where freight transfer occurs, GHG\ emissions that are related to the vessel’s\ activity should be calculated and reported\ as part of the sea TCE. This means that any\ energy, particularly electrical energy, received\ from the shore that is stored and subsequently\ used for propulsion or to maintain the cargo\ in the required condition, must be incorporated\ as part of the vessel operator’s GHG\ activity data.\ \ Additionally, GHG impact linked to refrigerant\ leakage that is then replenished during a port\ call needs to be included in the calculation of\ the sea transport’s GHG emissions. On the\ other hand, shore power (“cold ironing”) is to\ be included in the calculation of the logistics\ hub, unless otherwise agreed with the\ shipping company.\ \ * * *\ \ TOCs\ \ To cluster transport services with similar\ emission intensities, it is recommended to\ structure the TOCs for sea transport based\ on a suitable combination of the influencing\ factors as follows:\ \ Sea freight TOC characteristics:\ \ • Bulk carrier\ • Chemical tanker\ \ Vessel types:\ • Bulk carrier\ \ • General cargo Ro-Ro\ • Liquefied gas tanker\ \ • Chemical tanker\ • General cargo Ro-Ro\ \ • Liquefied gas tanker\ • Oil tanker\ \ • Oil tanker\ • Other liquid tanker\ \ • Other liquid tanker\ • Container\ \ • Container\ • Vehicle carrier\ \ • Vehicle carrier\ \ Freight conditions:\ • Ambient temperature-controlled\ \ • Ambient temperature-controlled\ • Mixed ambient and temperature-controlled\ \ • Mixed ambient and temperature-controlled\ \ Service type:\ • Scheduled (by origin and destination pairs)\ \ Mixed sea freight/passenger TOC\ characteristics:\ \ • Scheduled (by origin and destination pairs)\ • Tramp (unscheduled)\ \ Vessel size:\ • Varies by vessel type (refer to Table G.4\ of ISO 14083)9\ \ Vessel types:\ • Ro-Pax ferry (mixture of roll-on roll-off\ freight and passengers)\ \ Service type:\ • Scheduled (by origin and destination pairs)\ \ • Scheduled (by origin and destination pairs)\ • Chartered\ \ Methodology alignment\ \ • Chartered\ \ In line with ISO 14083 we distinguish two\ ways to categorize vessels or services for\ the purpose of calculating GHG emissions:\ vessel-based categorization and service-based\ categorization.9\ \ Vessel-based categorization\ \ Based on the IMO’s Fourth GHG Study,\ parameters such as freight type, vessel type,\ vessel size categories and freight condition\ (for fully temperature-controlled ships) can be\ combined into generally applicable TOCs for a\ vessel-based categorization. This vessel-based\ categorization method is particularly useful\ for charter services, where the vessel and\ its characteristics are known to both charter\ parties as they are fixed in the contract. As\ primary data is usually accessible in such a\ case, its use for calculating the GHG emissions\ of the sea transport is to be preferred. In all\ other cases, modeled or default data for the\ specific TOC can be used.\ \ representative for the specific transport\ service, based on the schedules in place.\ \ Energy sources\ \ Operational Indicator17\ • The IMO covers all forms of maritime\ transport and freight and provides default\ factors for various ships and energy sources.\ • IMO values must be scaled from CO2\ \ IMO Energy Efficiency\ Operational Indicator17\ • The IMO covers all forms of maritime\ \ \\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\ \ to CO2e.\ • IMO does not specify use of fuel life cycle.\ \ • IMO values must be scaled from CO2\ to CO2e.\ • IMO does not specify use of fuel life cycle.\ \ Clean Cargo Carbon\ Accounting Methodology22\ • Clean Cargo covers only container ships\ \ sector, where millions of trucks carry goods,\ ships are well-catalogued and tracked, and\ public information on each vessel is available\ via the IMO’s Global Integrated Shipping\ Information System.75\ \ Clean Cargo Carbon\ Accounting Methodology22\ • Clean Cargo covers only container ships\ \ • Clean Cargo covers only container ships\ though additional guidance may be offered\ in future.\ • Operator-specific data per trade lane is\ \ Requirements for sea transport\ calculations\ In cases where the specific vessel is not known\ \ • Operator-specific data per trade lane is\ case, its use for calculating the GHG emissions available to Clean Cargo members.\ • Specific guidance is available for calculating\ \ Continuing advances in digitization and data\ sharing within the maritime supply chain\ create more visibility on the actual vessel used\ to carry freight. This holds the potential to\ improve transparency in the supply chain and\ could build towards improved supply chain\ planning for shippers and LSPs, as refined\ vessel values based on carrier and/or vessel\ specific information will be key for tracking\ progress towards emission-reduction goals\ in the maritime sector. If a company invests\ more advanced shipping technology or using\ low sulfur energy sources and slow-steaming\ practices, the company wants its numbers to\ reflect it.\ \ Shipment mass\ \ If the actual cargo mass per TEU is not known,\ a standard conversion factor of 10 tonnes\ per TEU may be used for a typical container;\ a conversion factor of 6 tonnes per TEU for\ lightweight cargo, and a conversion factor of\ 14.5 tonnes per TEU for heavyweight cargo\ 50\ \ For containerized transport, the number of\ \ TEU slots available onboard is the primary\ limiting factor and the unit used for booking.\ Therefore, TEU is a common unit used instead\ of mass or weight. For example, Clean Cargo\ trade lane emission intensity values are\ expressed as CO2e per TEU. Conversion from\ TEU to tonnes is possible.\ \ * * *\ \ can be applied with justification (see also\ Section 1 Chapter 2 Calculation Steps,\ The Calculation in an Overview).\ \ • Calculation of transport activity distance for\ sea transport should be done using SFD or\ GCD, depending on available information.\ • Specific sea transport distance calculators\ \ Distance\ \ • Specific sea transport distance calculators\ are available for accurate results. SFD\ can be estimated e.g., using online port-toport calculators or via the Centre d’Études\ et de Recherches sur le Développement\ International (CERDI) Sea Distance\ Database.76\ • Actual distance can be found in ship\ \ • Actual distance can be found in ship\ logbooks. Where this actual distance is\ used to calculate the emission intensity, a\ DAF needs to be applied in the subsequent\ calculation of GHG emisisons.\ • The DAF should be based on the best\ \ • The DAF should be based on the best\ available information and should be relevant\ to the transportation context. In the\ absence of a specific operational DAF,\ a default global value can be used. Clean\ Cargo recommends using a DAF of 1.15\ since actual sea container transport\ distances were found to be on average\ 15% greater than the shortest feasible\ port-to-port route. Convert nautical miles\ to kilometers using factors in Annex Unit\ Conversions.\ \ Mode-specific considerations\ \ • As each TCE must be calculated separately\ before aggregation to a transport chain,\ for journeys with multiple legs you must also\ calculate the GHG emissions for each leg or\ element individually, before aggregation.\ • For high frequency, regular, repeatable or\ \ • For high frequency, regular, repeatable or\ short duration transport, it is common for\ the operator to aggregate a year’s worth of\ operational data for transportation operations\ that occur during that time period.\ • For charter operations in bulk shipping,\ \ • For charter operations in bulk shipping,\ quantify and report for specific journeys,\ as the data is identifiable for the individual\ journeys.\ • When transporting freight with mixed\ \ • When transporting freight with mixed\ temperature-controlled consignments, treat\ it as a single TOC and allocate GHG\ emissions between the ambient and\ temperature-controlled consignments based\ on the share of energy required to move\ the freight and the energy used to maintain\ the temperature-controlled freight within the\ required range.\ • Treat mixed passenger and freight\ \ • Treat mixed passenger and freight\ operations, typically for Ro-Pax ferries,\ as a single TOC and use passenger\ equivalents (peq) to estimate the allocation\ of emissions. These peqs are based on a\ combination of mass- and volume-based\ equivalents to provide balanced results.\ \ Refer to the peq values reflecting the\ characteristics of TOCs as follows:9\ \ Passenger transport:\ \ - Individual passenger (including luggage):\ \ - Individual passenger (including luggage):\ peq = 1.0\ \ - Passenger car: peq = 1.3\ \ - Passenger car: peq = 1.3\ \ - Bus/coach: peq = 10.0\ \ - Bus/coach: peq = 10.0\ \ - Caravan, small: peq = 1.1\ \ - Caravan, small: peq = 1.1\ \ - Caravan, medium: peq = 2.3\ \ - Caravan, medium: peq = 2.3\ \ - Caravan, large: peq = 3.5\ \ - Caravan, large: peq = 3.5\ \ - Mobile home: peq = 3.5\ \ - Mobile home: peq = 3.5\ \ - Motorcycle: peq = 0.3\ \ - Motorcycle: peq = 0.3\ \ \ Freight transport:\ \ - Small van: peq = 1.3\ \ - Small van: peq = 1.3\ \ - Large van: peq = 3.5\ \ - Large van: peq = 3.5\ \ - Rigid truck: peq = 10\ \ - Rigid truck: peq = 10\ \ - Articulated truck: peq = 18\ \ - Articulated truck: peq = 18\ \ - Unaccompanied trailer: peq = 14\ \ - Unaccompanied trailer: peq = 14\ \ \ * * *\ \ ## References\ \ **1**\ \ 01. ITF (2023), ITF Transport Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris; on [https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en](https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en).; last viewed 25/09/2024\ 02. Swiss Re Institute (2021): The economics of climate change: no action not an option; on [https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html](https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html) ; last viewed 25/09/2024\ 03. ITF (2023), ITF Transport Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris; on [https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en](https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en).; last viewed 25/09/2024\ 04. International Energy Agency IEA (2021): Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2020; Understanding the impacts of Covid-19 on global CO2 emissions; on [https://www.iea.org/articles/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-](https://www.iea.org/articles/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-) in-2020 ; last viewed 25/09/2024\ 05. International Energy Agency IEA (2022): Global CO2 emissions rebounded to their highest level in history in 2021; on [https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021](https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021) ; last viewed 25/09/2024\ 06. Canadell, P. et al. (2021): We’ve made progress to curb global emissions. But it’s a fraction of what’s needed; The Conversation, 03/03/2021; on: [https://theconversation.com/weve-made-progress-to-curb-global-emissions-but-its-](https://theconversation.com/weve-made-progress-to-curb-global-emissions-but-its-) a-fraction-of-whats-needed-156114 ; last viewed 25/09/2024\ 07. GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard on: [https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 08. Definition used by the EC European Alternative Fuels Observatory; on [https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/](https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/) ; last accessed 17/07/2023\ 09. ISO 14083:2023 Greenhouse gases — Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations (2023) [https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html](https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 10. IATA (2022): Recommended Practice 1678 for Cargo CO2 Emissions Measurement Methodology; [https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/sustainability/carbon-footprint/](https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/sustainability/carbon-footprint/) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 11. IATA (2022a): Recommended Practice 1726 Passenger CO2 Calculation Methodology, [https://www.iata.org/contentassets/139d686fa8f34c4ba7a41f7ba3e026e7/iata-rp-1726\_passenger-co2.pdf](https://www.iata.org/contentassets/139d686fa8f34c4ba7a41f7ba3e026e7/iata-rp-1726_passenger-co2.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 12. United States Environmental Protection Agency: SmartWay Air Carriers: Tools and Resources; [https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-air-carriers-tools-and-resources](https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-air-carriers-tools-and-resources) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 13. Dobers, K., Jarmer, J.-P. (2023): Guide for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting at Logistics Hubs. doi:10.24406/publica-2261\ 14. EU Ports European Economic Interest Group: Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprinting for Container Terminals (2023); [https://www.feport.eu/images/downloads/EEEG\_GHG\_Footprinting\_Guidance](https://www.feport.eu/images/downloads/EEEG_GHG_Footprinting_Guidance) Version\_2.0.pdf ; last accessed 17/07/2023. Last viewed 17/07/23\ 15. United States Environmental Protection Agency: SmartWay Barge Carrier: Tools and Resources [https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-barge-carrier-tools-and-resources](https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-barge-carrier-tools-and-resources) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 16. Smart Freight Centre & STC-NESTRA (2018): GHG Emissions Factors for Inland Waterways Transport; [https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/GLEC-report-on-GHG-Emission-Factors-for-Inland-](https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/GLEC-report-on-GHG-Emission-Factors-for-Inland-) Waterways-Transport-SFC2018.pdf ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 17. International Maritime Organization: Guidelines for Voluntary Use of the Ship Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (2009); [https://gmn.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Circ-684-EEOI-Guidelines.pdf](https://gmn.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Circ-684-EEOI-Guidelines.pdf) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 18. EcoTransIT World: Environmental Methodology and Data Update 2024; [https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308\_Methodology\_Report\_Update\_2024.pdf](https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308_Methodology_Report_Update_2024.pdf); last accessed 25/09/2024\ 19. United States Environmental Protection Agency: SmartWay Rail Carrier Tools and Resources; [https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-rail-carrier-tools-and-resources](https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-rail-carrier-tools-and-resources) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 20. HBEFA 4.2 (2022) on [https://www.hbefa.net/e/index.htm](https://www.hbefa.net/e/index.htm) ; last visited 10/09/2023\ 21. United States Environmental Protection Agency: SmartWay Truck Carrier Partner Resources; [https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-truck-carrier-partner-resources](https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-truck-carrier-partner-resources) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 22. Clean Cargo Working Group (2015). Clean Cargo Working Group Carbon Emissions Accounting Methodology. [https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Clean\_Cargo\_Emissions\_Calculation\_Methods\_2015-06\_2.pdf](https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Clean_Cargo_Emissions_Calculation_Methods_2015-06_2.pdf) ; last accessed 22/08/2023\ 23. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013). SmartWay Transport Partnership: Driving Data Integrity in Transportation Supply Chains; on [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/smartway\_transport](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/smartway_transport) partnership\_best\_practices\_in\_data\_quality\_assurance\_and\_quality\_control\_.pdf last accessed 25/09/2024\ 24. Ritchie H. (2020): Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from? [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector); last accessed 25/09/2024\ 25. Dessens, O., Köhler, M. O., Rogers, H. L., Jones, R. L. & Pyle, J. A. Aviation and Climate Change. Transp. Policy 34, 14–20 (2014).\ 26. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clouds and Aerosols. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013).\ 27. Graver, B., Zhang, K., & Rutherford, D. (2019). CO2 emissions from commercial aviation, 2018. The International Council of Clean Transportation. Retrieved at: [https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT\_CO2-commercl-aviation-2018\_20190918.pdf](https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_CO2-commercl-aviation-2018_20190918.pdf) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 28. IATA (2022): Global Outlook for Air Transport – Times of Turbulence; on [https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/airline-industry-economic-performance---june-2022---report/](https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/airline-industry-economic-performance---june-2022---report/) ; last accessed 0 2/10/2024\ \ * * *\ \ ## References\ \ **1**\ \ 29. Air Transport Action Group. (2019). Fact sheet #3 – Tracking aviation efficiency. Retrieved from [https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/associates/services/organisation/Schulleitung/mobilitaetsplattform/ATAG\_fact-sheet\_3\_tracking-aviation-efficiency.pdf](https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/associates/services/organisation/Schulleitung/mobilitaetsplattform/ATAG_fact-sheet_3_tracking-aviation-efficiency.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 30. Energy Transitions Commission. Reaching Zero Carbon Emissions from Aviation. (2018). Retrieved at [https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mission-possible](https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mission-possible) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 31. European Commission. (2021). Flightpath to 2050: An Aviation Strategy for Europe.\ 32. Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) by International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO); on [https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/pages/default.aspx](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/pages/default.aspx) ; last viewed on 02/10/2024\ 33. IATA (2022). Recommended Practice 1678 for Cargo CO2 Emissions Measurement Methodology. [https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/sustainability/carbon-footprint](https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/sustainability/carbon-footprint) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 34. IATA (2022). Recommended Practice 1726 Per-Passenger CO2 Calculation Methodology. [https://www.iata.org/contentassets/139d686fa8f34c4ba7a41f7ba3e026e7/iata-rp-1726\_passenger-co2.pdf](https://www.iata.org/contentassets/139d686fa8f34c4ba7a41f7ba3e026e7/iata-rp-1726_passenger-co2.pdf) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 35. ICAO Carbon Emission Calculator: [https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 36. Resolution A41-22: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection — Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Retrieved at: [https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Documents/Resolution\_A41-22\_CORSIA.pdf](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Documents/Resolution_A41-22_CORSIA.pdf) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 37. Trummer, W. et al. (2018): New ropeway system for Smart Urban Mobility & Logistics in the City of Graz. In Proceedings of the Transport Research Arena 2018: A Digital Era for Transport, Vienna, Austria, 16–19 April 2018. https:// pure.tugraz.at/ws/portalfiles/portal/18089766/TRA2018\_10696\_Trummer.pdf ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 38. Dobers, K., Perotti. S., Wilmsmeier, G., Mauer, G., Jarmer, J.-P., Spaggiari, L., Hering, M., Romano, S. & Skalski, M. (2022): Sustainable logistics hubs: greenhouse gas emissions as one sustainability key performance indicator. Proceedings of the Transport Research Arena (TRA) Conference.\ 39. World Economic Forum WEF (2009): Supply Chain Decarbonization: The Role of Logistics and Transport in Reducing Supply Chain Carbon Emissions.\ 40. McKinnon, A.C. (2018): Decarbonizing Logistics: Distributing goods in a low carbon world. Kogan Page\ 41. Rüdiger, D., Dobers, K., Ehrler, V.C. & Lewis, A. (2017): Carbon footprinting of warehouses and distribution centers as part of road freight transport chains. 4th International Workshop on Sustainable Road Freight Transport. Cambridge.\ 42. Dobers, K., Jarmer, J.-P. (2023): Guide for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting at Logistics Hubs. doi:10.24406/publica-2261\ 43. Reff Assessment Tool®: Resource Efficiency at Logistics Sites. Fraunhofer IML. Available at: [https://reff.iml.fraunhofer.de/](https://reff.iml.fraunhofer.de/) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 44. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2020): Review of Maritime Transport 2020. [https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2020](https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2020) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 45. European Commission, Communication from the Commission: Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future, COM(2020) 789. [https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-04/2021-mobility-strategy-and-action-plan.pdf](https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-04/2021-mobility-strategy-and-action-plan.pdf) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 46. International Energy Agency IEA (2017): CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion.\ 47. Energy Transitions Commission (2018). Reaching Zero Carbon Emissions from Shipping.\ 48. The Business: Inland Water Transport Global Market Report; [https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/inland-water-transport-global-market-report](https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/inland-water-transport-global-market-report) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 49. UNECE, ITF and Eurostat (2019). Glossary for Transport Statistics. [https://unece.org/transport/publications/glossary-transport-statistics](https://unece.org/transport/publications/glossary-transport-statistics) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 50. Tomareva, I. A., et al. (2017). Impact of Pipeline Construction on Air Environment. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 262 012168: [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/262/1/012168](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/262/1/012168) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 51. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2020). 2011-2020 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Sector Profile: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. [https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/subpart\_w\_2020\_sector\_profile.pdf](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/subpart_w_2020_sector_profile.pdf) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 52. SLOCAT (2023) : SLOCAT Transport, Climate and Sustainability, Global Status Report; 3rd Edition; on [https://tcc-gsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SLOCAT-Transport-Climate-and-Sustainability-Global-Status-Report-%E2%80%93-3rd-Edition.pdf](https://tcc-gsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SLOCAT-Transport-Climate-and-Sustainability-Global-Status-Report-%E2%80%93-3rd-Edition.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 53. IEA (2022), Rail. Retrieved at: [https://www.iea.org/reports/rail](https://www.iea.org/reports/rail) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 54. International Transport Forum ITF (2023), ITF Transport Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, [https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en](https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 55. United States: Department of Transportation (2022) ‒ Rail Climate Considerations. [https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/rail-climate-considerations](https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/rail-climate-considerations) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 56. European Commission (2020), European Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. Retrieved at: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0789](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0789) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 57. ERFA (2022), High energy prices could reverse intermodal shift, says ERFA. Retrieved at: [https://erfarail.eu/news/press-release-development-of-energy-prices-threaten-competitive-rail-freight-market](https://erfarail.eu/news/press-release-development-of-energy-prices-threaten-competitive-rail-freight-market) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 58. EcoTransIT World : Environmental Methodology and Data Update 2024. [https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308\_Methodology\_Report\_Update\_2024.pdf](https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308_Methodology_Report_Update_2024.pdf); last accessed 25/09/2024\ \ * * *\ \ ## References\ \ **1**\ \ 58. EcoTransIT World : Environmental Methodology and Data Update 2024. [https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308\_Methodology\_Report\_Update\_2024.pdf](https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308_Methodology_Report_Update_2024.pdf); last accessed 25/09/2024\ 59. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018 SmartWay Rail Carrier Partner Tool: Technical Documentation. (2018)\ 60. International Union of Railways (2021). RAIL Information System and Analyses: UIC Statistics. [https://uic.org/support-activities/statistics/](https://uic.org/support-activities/statistics/) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 61. International Energy Agency (2022). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. [https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3c8fa115-35c4-4474-b237-1b00424c8844/CO2Emissionsin2022.pdf](https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3c8fa115-35c4-4474-b237-1b00424c8844/CO2Emissionsin2022.pdf) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 62. Eurostat (2022): Road freight transport statistics; Data extracted in September 2022; [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Road\_freight\_transport\_statistics](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Road_freight_transport_statistics) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 63. OECD ILibrary: ITF Transport Outlook (2021): Freight transport: Bold action can decarbonise movement of goods; [https://doi.org/10.1787/0c13b23d-en](https://doi.org/10.1787/0c13b23d-en). ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 64. Energy Transitions Commission(2018): Reaching Zero Carbon Emissions from Heavy Road Transport. Retrieved at: [https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mission-possible](https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mission-possible) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 65. European Commission. (2017). COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SWD/2017/0184. [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2017:0187:FIN:EN:PDF](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2017:0187:FIN:EN:PDF) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 66. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2021). Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) data snapshot: Carrier demographics. [https://www.truckinfo.net/research/trucking-statistics](https://www.truckinfo.net/research/trucking-statistics) ; last accessed 17/07/2023\ 67. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, International Transport Forum & Eurostat Illustrated Glossary for Transport Statistics: 4th Edition (2009)\ 68. UNCTAD (2022). Review of Maritime Transport. [https://unctad.org/rmt2022](https://unctad.org/rmt2022) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 69. IMO (2020), Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020, IMO, London. Retrieved at: [https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Fourth-IMO-Greenhouse-Gas-Study-2020.aspx#:~:text=Key%20findings%20from%20the%20Fourth%20IMO](https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Fourth-IMO-Greenhouse-Gas-Study-2020.aspx#:~:text=Key%20findings%20from%20the%20Fourth%20IMO) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 70. IRENA (2019), Navigating the way to a renewable future: Solutions to decarbonise shipping, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. Retrieved at: [https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Sep/Navigating-the-way-to-](https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Sep/Navigating-the-way-to-) a-renewable-future ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 71. Transport & Environment (2023): What is the impact of shipping on climate change?; [https://www.transportenvironment.org/challenges/ships/greenhouse-gases/](https://www.transportenvironment.org/challenges/ships/greenhouse-gases/) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 72. Ammar, Nader R. (201è): Energy- and cost-efficiency analysis of greenhouse gas emission reduction using slow steaming of ships: case study RO-RO cargo vessel, Ships and offshore structures, 13(8), 868-876. Retrieved at: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445302.2018.1470920](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445302.2018.1470920) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 73. Shipfinex (2023): Shipping Industry: A Comprehensive Overview for 2023; [https://www.shipfinex.com/shipping-industry](https://www.shipfinex.com/shipping-industry) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 74. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, International Transport Forum & Eurostat: (2009): Illustrated Glossary for Transport Statistics: 4th edition. [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-ra-10-028](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-ra-10-028) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 75. International Maritime Organisation IMO (2023): Global Integrated Shipping Information System [https://gisis.imo.org/Public/Default.aspx](https://gisis.imo.org/Public/Default.aspx) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 76. Bertoli, S., Goujon, M. & Santoni, O. The CERDI-Seadistance Database. (2017). Retrieved at: [https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01288748/file/2016.07.pdf](https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01288748/file/2016.07.pdf) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ \ * * *\ \ ## Using emission\ \ ## results\ \ ### Chapter 1 Reporting emissions\ \ **2**\ \ ### Chapter 2 Beyond reporting\ \ ### Chapter 3 Outlook & the path towards global uptake\ \ ### References\ \ _Click on each icon to go straight to the chapter_ _Click here to go back to Structure of the document page_\ \ * * *\ \ Chapter 1\ Reporting emissions\ \ Click here to go back to Section 2 contents page\ \ Equally important as the calculation of GHG emissions,\ is their reporting. It is the tool with which an organization\ communicates its efforts and results of GHG emission\ reduction. It is therefore the purpose of GHG emission\ reporting to provide transparent and accurate information.\ Reporting also helps stakeholders, including investors,\ customers and regulators, to understand the organization’s\ environmental impact and sustainability performance.\ \ (UV\]LY\]PL^VM\[OL\ IHZPJWYPUJPWSLZ\ \ The guide “End-to-End GHG Reporting\ of Logistics Operations” published by\ the Smart Freight Centre (SFC) and the\ Global Logistics Emission Council (GLEC)\ jointly with the World Business Council for\ Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and\ the Partnership for Carbon Transparency\ (PACT), considers in detail opportunities,\ requirements and approaches for\ transparent and meaningful emission\ reporting.1 It includes insights and needs\ identified in the years of cooperation\ between the SFC and its partner\ organizations.\ \ the GLEC Framework must report at least\ the minimum elements listed in this chapter.\ However, if companies have more information\ about their GHG emissions that they are\ willing to share, they can refer to other\ reporting frameworks such as the afore\ mentioned End-to-End guide, the GHG\ protocol3 CDP4, and Science-Based Targets\ initiative (SBTi5) guidelines. The reporting\ requirements mapped out in the following\ sections refer to the external reporting of GHG\ emissions. Internal reporting for managerial\ purposes will usually require the inclusion of\ further details and specifications.\ \ * * *\ \ Figure 1\ Scope 1, 2, and 3 according to the GHG protocol3\ \ Emissions should be reported using two key\ performance indicators (KPIs) in conjunction\ with each other:\ • a total GHG emission value, which shows\ \ absolute value, and\ • a GHG emission intensity value, which links\ the emissions to the transport activity\ (for transport operators or service providers),\ or amount of product (e.g., for manufacturers\ or retailers), by setting these values in\ relation to one another.\ \ Reporting: the basics\ \ Total emissions\ \ Total emissions are important for reporting\ and tracking an organization’s overall\ emissions from year to year. Total, or absolute,\ emissions, are often expressed as kg or\ tonnes CO2e over a defined timeframe.\ \ Emissions can be differentiated into:\ • well-to-tank (WTT) emissions; referred to as\ \ • well-to-tank (WTT) emissions; referred to as\ energy provision GHG emissions within the\ GLEC Framework v3 and the ISO 14083,\ and\ • tank-to-wheel emissions (TTW), also called\ \ • tank-to-wheel emissions (TTW), also called\ tank-to-wake emissions; referred to as\ operational GHG emissions within the\ GLEC Framework v3 and the ISO 14083\ \ related emissions from different stakeholders,\ distinguishing between an organization’s direct\ owned emissions (Scope 1), indirect owned\ emissions (Scope 2), and indirect, value chain\ emissions (Scope 3).3\ \ Jointly, these two add up to the well-to-wheel,\ also called well-to-wake (WTW) emissions and\ they build the emissions of an entire transport\ chain element (TCE).\ \ The GLEC Framework v3, like the ISO 14083,\ is based on the WTW concept, i.e., the\ inclusion of the entire emissions of a transport\ chain and its elements (see also Section 1\ Chapter 1).\ \ From a logistics service provider’s (LSP)\ perspective, emissions from their own\ operated transportation assets and hubs\ are classed as Scope 1, for operational fuelrelated emissions, or Scope 2, for electricityrelated emissions. Related energy provision\ emissions are included in Scope 3, category 3\ (Fuel- and energy-related activities), whereas\ operational and energy provision emissions\ for outsourced transportation are included in\ Scope 3, category 4 (Upstream transportation\ and distribution). From a customer’s\ perspective all of these emissions are included\ in Scope 3, category 4.\ \ When calculating and reporting GHG\ emissions, there is another approach that\ is often linked to the reporting unit’s scope,\ which includes Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope\ 3 emissions. This is a fundamental concept\ that the GHG Protocol uses to categorize\ emissions (see also Introduction and Section 1\ Chapter 1.\ \ * * *\ \ Emission Intensity\ \ Emission intensity is an important KPI to\ gain insight into the efficiency of transport\ and transport operations. Emission intensity\ metrics provide a numerical value to track,\ analyze and strategize emissions reduction.\ They also provide a pathway for companies\ to showcase efficiency in the face of business\ growth; e.g. an expanding business might\ show an increase in total emissions while\ reducing emission intensity.\ \ Generally, reporting a KPI combination of total\ emissions and emission intensity values is\ always the best way to understand how far\ an improvement of transport efficiency and\ sustainability is achieved, e.g., by reporting a\ tonne-kilometer-based emission intensity KPI\ alongside total emissions.\ \ Emission intensity values provide a numerical\ basis for carriers to communicate to\ customers and stakeholders their progress\ towards meeting emissions reduction targets\ over time. For example, if an operator invests\ in new electric trucks or consolidates its\ shipments to reduce partial loads, the energy\ efficiency will go up and the CO2e intensity will\ go down.\ \ Figure 2\ Calculating emission\ intensity of transport\ operation categories\ (TOCs)\ \ GHG emission\ intensity of\ a transport\ activity\ \ Total GHG\ emissions\ of a specific\ transport\ activity\ \ Quantity of\ this specific\ transport\ activity in tkm\ \ Figure 3\ Calculating emission\ intensity of hub\ operation categories\ (HOCs)\ \ GHG emission\ intensity of a\ hub operation\ activity\ \ Quantity of\ this specific\ hub operation\ activity\ \ Total GHG\ emissions of\ that specific\ hub operation\ activity\ \ Accordance with ISO 14083\ \ In the context of reporting GHG emissions,\ granularity refers to the level of detail at which\ data is reported or analyzed. It is the extent\ to which data is broken down into smaller or\ more specific components.\ \ For example, in the case of reporting GHG\ emissions for transport and hubs, granularity\ may refer to the level of detail at which\ emissions are reported for different modes of\ transport, types of hubs, or specific transport\ or hub services. A high level of granularity\ would mean that emissions are reported\ in very specific detail, while a low level of\ granularity would mean that emissions are\ reported in more general terms.\ \ The level of granularity chosen will depend on\ the goals of the reporting entity and the level\ of detail needed to support decision-making\ or communicate with stakeholders. In general,\ higher granularity can provide more detailed\ insights and support more precise decisionmaking, while lower granularity can make\ reporting and analysis more manageable and\ easier to communicate.\ \ Differences in or omissions or deviations from\ the calculation procedures as specified in ISO\ 14083 and the GLEC Framework v3 are to be\ avoided. Where they are unavoidable, they\ must be highlighted and justified, and their\ implications must be described in the report.\ \ Transparency requirements\ \ * * *\ \ Accuracy and data quality\ \ To ensure transparency, an emission report\ should be clearly structured, and the data\ sourcing and calculation must be explained.\ ISO 14083 requires transparent reporting\ of modeled data or default GHG emission\ intensities used in calculations.2 Each report\ should specify the quality of data used by\ indicating the share of primary and secondary\ data applied in the calculation of GHG\ emissions. For secondary data, the report\ should distinguish between the share of\ modeled and default data.2\ \ If modeled data is used, the report must\ specify the type of model used and the\ parameters applied. If the share of primary\ and secondary data used for different TOC\ parameters (such as vehicle size category,\ filling rate and street category/topography)\ differs as input to a model, the report should\ indicate what the balance of data type is for\ each parameter. Furthermore, for each model\ it should be stated, which of the following\ parameters are included or not:2\ \ • operational: freight type (freight\ requirements/characteristics, use of specific\ container types, load factor of average load\ expressed in tonnes, service type such as\ full truck load, less than truck load etc.,\ extent of empty trips)\ \ • journey characteristics: routing including\ locations of intermediate stops (route\ characteristics, location characteristics,\ direct/via locations/multiple collection\ and delivery), drive cycle (road type, urban/\ mixed/long-haul, frequency of stops, speed\ profile, topography), geographic region of\ applicability, currents/flowrate, head, cross\ or tail wind and windspeed, any additional\ parameters\ \ Frequency and format of reporting\ \ There are different reporting formats that\ an organization can use, depending on its\ objectives and audience. The basic reporting\ format recommended by ISO 14083 covers\ data on the transport chains, the total of GHG\ emissions and GHG emission intensity, as well\ as the total of GHG emissions and emission\ intensity for TCEs of each mode of transport\ and for hub operations, as further presented\ below. Depending on the reporting format,\ additional elements may need to be included\ in the report.2\ \ 3. Reporting levels\ \ SFC and WBCSD’s End-to-End guide1, or\ requirements for reporting as defined by\ the GHG Protocol,3 CDP4 or SBTi5. These\ frameworks require additional reporting\ elements beyond the ISO report (see also Info\ box Additional reporting requirements by other\ standards.)\ \ It is recommended that organizations start\ with a basic report and then progress to more\ comprehensive reporting as they mature in\ their sustainability efforts and stakeholder\ engagement.\ \ Once the calculations have been completed,\ the results can be used to report and declare\ emissions. ISO 14083 provides two options for\ the level of reporting:2\ • Reporting at the organizational level and\ \ • Reporting at the organizational level and\ • Reporting at the level of transport or\ hub services\ \ Reporting at the organizational level\ \ In either case, depending on practical issues,\ the report can take the form of either a single\ long report or a short report complemented\ with other information made available\ separately.2 A single long report provides\ a comprehensive and detailed analysis of\ GHG emissions, which can be useful for\ stakeholders who require a more detailed\ understanding of the organization’s or service\ provider’s emissions. The alternative, a short\ report complemented with other information\ made available separately, can provide a\ summary of GHG emissions that is easier to\ understand for stakeholders who require a\ quick overview of the organization’s or service\ provider’s emissions. The form and scope of\ reporting should be determined based on the\ organization’s or service provider’s goals, the\ intended audience and purpose of the report,\ and practical considerations such as data\ availability and resources.\ \ This reporting format is suitable for both\ organizations that operate all transport\ services they use, as well as those\ that purchase a significant amount of\ transportation services and wish to report\ on the GHG emissions associated with their\ entire transport chain(s). It can be used for\ an entire organization or parts of it, such as\ business units, profit centers, geographical\ regions of operation, subsidiaries or any other\ relevant criteria.\ \ * * *\ \ The report must include as basic information:2\ \ 1. the identification of the transport chains\ covered;\ \ 2. the absolute value of the total GHG\ \ 3. the absolute value of the total GHG\ emissions of the covered transport chains,\ including all related energy provision\ emissions;\ \ 4. the total GHG emission intensity of the\ \ 5. the total GHG emission intensity of the\ entire covered transport chains, including all\ related energy provision emissions, specifying\ the type of transport activity distance used;\ \ 6. the total GHG emissions for each mode\ \ 7. the total GHG emissions for each mode\ of transport, for each hub operation, and all\ related energy provision emissions included in\ the transport chains covered by the report;\ \ 8. the total GHG emission intensity for the\ \ 9. a reference specifying where all relevant\ supporting information can be found.\ \ \ The transport or hub service level report is\ suitable for service providers who want to\ report on the GHG emissions of a specific set\ of transport or hub services that they provide\ to a service user. This level of reporting\ requires a more focused analysis of emissions\ associated with the specific set of services\ provided.\ \ When reporting at the level of transport or hub\ services, the report can either apply to a single\ TCE or to a set of TCEs that comprise part\ \ of or a full transport chain. The identification\ of transport or hub services covered by the\ report can either be done by listing all services\ included or by specifying the period of time\ during which they were provided and used.\ \ 01. the identification of the TCE(s) or transport\ chain(s) covered;\ \ 02. the absolute value of the total GHG\ \ 03. the absolute value of the total GHG\ emissions of the covered TCEs, including all\ related energy provision emissions;\ \ 04. the total GHG emission intensity of the\ \ 05. the total GHG emission intensity of the\ TCEs covered by the report, including all\ related energy provision emissions, specifying\ the type of transport activity distance used;\ \ 06. a reference, specifying where all relevant\ \ 07. a reference, specifying where all relevant\ supporting information can be found;\ \ 08. the transport activity covered by the\ \ 09. the transport activity covered by the\ report, including a specification of the type of\ distance used;\ \ 10. the hub activity covered by the report;\ \ 11. the total GHG emissions, transport activity\ and/or GHG emission intensities for each\ mode of transport and for each hub operation,\ specifying the type of transport activity\ distance used.\ \ 12. the operational GHG emission intensity\ of transport operations and hub operations,\ and the transport activity distance used, or\ any other freight transport activity unit used\ (e.g., number of twenty-foot equivalent units\ (TEUs));\ \ 13. the total GHG emissions, transport activity\ \ 14. the hub activity covered by the report;\ \ 15. GHG emissions related to all vehicle\ operations and hub operations;\ \ 16. the operational GHG emission intensity\ \ \ Furthermore, a report at the level of transport\ or hub services should include the following\ details to provide transparency and enable\ improvements of sustainability and efficiency\ of the operations:2\ \ • Split by hub and transport service:\ All information provided needs to be split by\ hub or transport service they are related to.\ • Split total operational and energy provision\ \ • Split total operational and energy provision\ GHG emissions: The report must split the\ total GHG emissions into i) operational\ and ii) energy provision GHG emissions.\ Additionally, the report should provide a\ breakdown of GHG emissions by\ energy carrier.\ • Split of total GHG intensity per mode and\ \ • Split of total GHG intensity per mode and\ hub: When reporting GHG intensity, an\ average for the entire organization as well\ as of the intensity of each transport mode\ and hub must be provided.\ \ When reporting GHG intensity, indicate the\ granularity of the categories used to group\ similar trips or logistics sites over a set\ period. This will help ensure that all emissions\ incurred are accounted for, even if there were\ empty trips.\ \ * * *\ \ | Reporting requirements | Organizational level | Transport or hub services level |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Identification of transport chains/services | Report on all or part of transport chains operated or used by an organization | Identification of TCE(s) or transport chain(s) covered by the report |\ | Reference to ISO 14083 | Required | Required |\ | Total GHG emissions | Required | Required |\ | Total GHG emission intensity | Required, specifying the type of transport activity distance used | Required, specifying the type of transport activity distance used |\ | Total GHG emissions for each mode of transport and hub operation | Required | Required |\ | Total GHG emission intensity for each mode | Required, specifying the type of transport activity distance used | Required, specifying the type of transport activity distance used |\ | Reference to the location of supporting info | Required | Required |\ | Report Frequency | At least on an annual basis covering all operations performed or purchased during a 12-month period | At least on an annual basis covering all operations performed or purchased during a 12-month period |\ | Data Quality | Specification of data quality applied (primary or secondary, modeled or default values) | Specification of data quality applied (primary or secondary, modeled or default values) |\ | Specification of any deviation to standard processes | Required, including explanation for deviation and resulting impacts | Required, including explanation for deviation and resulting impacts |\ | Additional Details strongly recommended | Disaggregation of GHG emissions by mode of transport and by hub locationdisaggregation of total GHG emissions into operational GHG emissions and energy provision GHG emissionsbreakdown of GHG emissions by energy carrier. | Disaggregation of GHG emissions by mode of transport and by hub locationdisaggregation of total GHG emissions into operational GHG emissions and energy provision GHG emissionsbreakdown of GHG emissions by energy carrier. |\ \ 4. Tracking emission reductions\ in conformance with the GLEC\ principles beyond ISO 14083\ \ • Reduction of absolute emissions\ • Reduction of relative emissions\ • Reduction of relative emissions in case\ \ • Reduction of absolute emissions\ • Reduction of relative emissions\ \ • Reduction of relative emissions in case\ no measured data for transport activity\ is available\ • Reduction of relative emissions per mode\ \ KPI: Reduction of absolute emissions\ \ Limitation of information value: This absolute\ result does not reflect relative reductions\ of an organization’s emissions, e.g., if an\ organization has grown in business and at the\ same time has improved its energy efficiency,\ then the absolute emissions could remain\ unchanged, despite this improvement in\ energy efficiency.\ \ Information value of the KPI: it communicates\ the overall bigger picture, and for reaching\ climate targets we need to reduce our overall\ transport emissions.\ \ Absolute year-on-year (YOY) GHG\ emissions change\ \ In addition to the calculation of the change in\ absolute emissions, it is therefore important to\ consider the change in relative emissions.\ \ For the identification of a structural reduction\ or avoidance of logistics emissions, it is\ important to put emissions into the context\ of actual transport activity (tkm) or hub\ operation activity of the reporting entity. This is\ particularly important for transport operators\ and service providers. If the relative number\ (e.g., emission intensity) in the current year\ is lower than in the previous year then this is\ evidence of structural emission reductions in\ logistics processes or avoided emissions in\ case of total activity growth.\ \ 1. Take the previous year´s emission intensity\ value (in tonnes CO e/tkm)\ 2\ 2. Take the current year´s total transport\ \ 2\ 2\. Take the current year´s total transport\ activity (in tkm)\ 3\. Multiply the previous year’s emission\ \ * * *\ \ Relative\ change in\ emissions in\ tonnes CO2e\ \ Current year’s\ total transport\ emissions in\ tonnes CO2e\ \ 4. Calculate the absolute value of the current\ year’s total emissions in tonnes CO2e.\ 5. Subtract from the current year’s actual\ emissions the value calculated in Step 3.\ The result is the relative change in emissions\ in tonne CO2e.\ \ Information value of the KPI: By multiplying\ the previous year’s emission intensity value\ with the current year’s total transport activity,\ you obtain the quantity of CO2e that would\ have been emitted in the current year, had\ there been no change in emission intensity\ compared with the previous year.\ \ If the resulting value of the relative change\ in emissions is positive, this indicates an\ increase in the emission intensity. The value of\ “relative changes in emissions” indicates the\ tonnes CO2e produced in addition to those\ that would have been generated had the\ emission intensity remained unchanged.\ \ reduce total transport emissions. Therefore, it\ is important to calculate absolute as well as\ relative emissions.\ \ KPI: In case no measured data for transport\ activity is accessible\ \ Emission intensities based on activity data\ are most relevant for transport operators and\ logistics service providers. They can also\ be useful for the purchasers of transport\ services to understand the efficiency of their\ purchased transport. However, it is also\ possible, and potentially more relevant for\ shippers who don´t have access to such\ accurate transport activity data, to make a\ similar calculation using an emission intensity\ value based on another metric (e.g., tonnes\ CO2e/t product, tonnes CO2e/products sold)\ to allow for changes in business activity. The\ process is similar to that explained previously\ where the business activity for the current\ year is multiplied by the emission intensity\ of the previous year to calculate a notional\ baseline for the current year. This value is then\ compared with the total emissions for the\ current year.\ \ Use of turnover as the alternative metric is\ discouraged as it is less closely related to\ actual logistics activities, as witnessed by the\ huge variations in market prices for logistics\ services in recent years.\ \ KPI: Per mode of transport\ \ A similar approach can be followed to track\ emissions avoided per mode of transport by\ using emission intensity and transport activity\ data specific to each mode. Below is an\ example of road transportation.\ Analysis by mode of transport is a very\ valuable additional KPI to render the\ development of transport efficiency\ transparent. This KPI is computed by using\ emission intensity and transport activity data\ specific to each mode of transport or for\ each hub. The calculation approach remains\ unchanged to the KPI for relative emissions:\ For this example of road transport, the\ emission intensity of the previous year is\ multiplied by the road-specific transport\ activity of the current year. In the next step,\ this product is subtracted from the total road\ transport-related emissions of the current year.\ The difference between the two values is the\ change in tonne CO2e (road).\ \ Previous\ year’s road\ emission\ intensity\ \ Current year’s\ total road\ transport\ activity in tkm\ \ Relative\ change in\ emissions of\ road transport\ in tonnes CO2e\ \ * * *\ \ Information value of the KPI: Such an\ analysis allows us to distinguish the\ development of emission intensity of the\ different transport modes. It can be identified\ whether, for example, the emission intensity\ of train transport improved, while the emission\ intensity of road transport worsened. Further\ analysis can then be carried out on what\ the reasons for such changes might be (e.g.\ an increase in traffic jams.) The analysis\ in this case, therefore, would support the\ consideration of shifting transport from one\ mode to another with the perspective of an\ improvement of the overall emission intensity\ of the transport services used or provided.\ \ If the resulting number is negative, this\ indicates that the emission intensity of this\ specific mode or hub during the current year\ is lower than during the previous year. The\ current year’s mode-specific transport activity\ was carried out with a lower emission intensity\ than previously, and the value of the “relative\ change in emissions” indicates the mass of\ CO2e corresponding to the GHG emissions\ that have been avoided.\ \ If the resulting value of the relative change\ in emissions is positive, this indicates an\ increase in the specific transport mode\ emission intensity. The value of “relative\ changes in emissions” indicates the tonnes\ of train transport improved, while the emission of CO2e produced in addition to those\ generated had the emission intensity remained\ unchanged.\ \ It communicates the overall bigger picture,\ and for reaching climate targets we need\ to reduce our overall transport emissions\ (considering changes in CO2e intensity\ and allowing for a change in business and\ transport activity compared to the\ previous year.)\ \ Additional reporting\ requirements by\ other standards\ \ A range of widely recognized approaches for\ GHG emission reporting exists. These can be\ distinguished into three groups:\ \ • overarching global standards\ (e.g., ISO 14064, GHG Protocol, European\ Union Emissions Trading System ( EU ETS))\ • transport specific standards (e.g., GLEC,\ formerly EN 16258, ISO 14083)\ • reporting initiatives (e.g., CDP, SBTi,\ \ • transport specific standards (e.g., GLEC,\ formerly EN 16258, ISO 14083)\ • reporting initiatives (e.g., CDP, SBTi,\ Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI)\ \ GHG Protocol3\ \ All these standards are in alignment with\ the principles and minimum requirements\ outlined in the GLEC Framework v3.\ Therefore, companies that adhere to these\ standards can be confident that they are\ meeting the necessary reporting criteria for\ freight transport-related emissions while also\ going above and beyond to improve their\ sustainability reporting more broadly.\ \ In particular, the SBTi5 and CDP4\ offer detailed guidance on establishing\ meaningful targets and accounting and\ reporting transport-related emissions in a\ meaningful way, thus supporting organizations\ in improving their reporting accuracy and\ transparency.\ \ The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and\ Reporting Standard - Revised Edition provides\ guidance for companies reporting their GHG\ emissions.\ \ * * *\ \ Required information for Scope 1 and 2\ accounting and reporting includes:\ \ • Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions that are not\ related to GHG trades\ • Separate emissions data for each scope\ \ • Separate emissions data for each scope\ • Emissions data for all seven GHGs (CO2, CH4\ \ • Emissions data for all seven GHGs (CO2, CH4,\ N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3) in metric tons\ and in tonnes of CO2 equivalent. While GHG\ Protocol requires the splitting of the emissions,\ the other approaches only require a value for the\ combined CO2e.\ • For comparisons and target setting, a base year\ \ • For comparisons and target setting, a base year\ must be chosen and related policy measures\ have to be stated, along with a description\ of the related context so that any significant\ emissions changes in relation to the base year\ can be recalculated.\ • Emissions data for direct CO2 emissions from\ \ • Emissions data for direct CO2 emissions from\ biologically sequestered carbon\ • Methodologies used to calculate or measure\ \ biologically sequestered carbon\ • Methodologies used to calculate or measure\ emissions, including any calculation tools used\ • Any sources, facilities and/or operations\ \ • Any sources, facilities and/or operations\ excluded from the inventory\ \ For the calculation of Scope 3 emissions the GHG\ protocol provides The Corporate Value Chain\ (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard\ Supplement. It outlines required and optional\ information that companies should publicly\ report in their GHG emissions report. Required\ information includes:\ \ • Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reported in\ conformance with the GHG Protocol Corporate\ Standard\ • Total Scope 3 emissions reported separately\ \ Standard\ • Total Scope 3 emissions reported separately\ by Scope 3 category (for full list of Scope 3\ categories see the relevant CDP section)\ • List of Scope 3 categories and activities included\ \ • List of Scope 3 categories and activities included\ and excluded from the inventory with justification\ for exclusion\ • For each Scope 3 category:\ \ • For each Scope 3 category:\ • Total emissions of GHGs (CO2\ \ • Total emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O,\ HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3) reported in metric tons\ of CO2e, excluding biogenic CO2 emissions and\ independent of any GHG trades\ • Any biogenic CO2 emissions reported separately\ \ • Any biogenic CO2 emissions reported separately\ • A description of the types and sources of data\ \ • A description of the types and sources of data\ used to calculate emissions, and a description of\ the data quality of reported emissions data\ • A description of the methodologies, allocation\ \ SBTi Transport Target Setting Guidance5\ The SBTi, a collaboration between CDP, World\ Resources Institute (WRI), the WWF and the\ United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), was\ formed in 2015 to establish science-based\ environmental target setting as a standard\ corporate practice. SFC and the SBTi have\ joined forces to collaborate and standardize\ greenhouse gas accounting, conventions and\ high-level principles to set global 1.5°C-aligned\ pathways for the transport industry.7 The\ collaboration aims to update the SBTi Transport\ Sector Guidance d. It will develop new\ technical guidance, comprehensively update\ existing resources and define best practices\ for accounting, monitoring and reporting of\ transport emissions.\ \ The transport guidance covers a range of\ end-users, including passenger transport\ companies, logistics service providers, shippers,\ carriers, postal companies, road vehicle\ manufacturers and companies with significant\ transport emissions in their value chain. It offers\ guidance on the transport categories it covers,\ the data required for target modeling, and\ the expected output. It also provides specific\ guidance for different end-users, such as those\ who control a fleet of vehicles or those who\ manufacture road vehicle parts. The guidance\ covers GHG emissions that an organization\ should estimate to model a target, including\ the aggregation of emissions scopes to obtain\ WTW emissions, definitions of activity units,\ approaches for setting science-based targets\ and the interpretation of results obtained with\ the Sustainable Development Agenda (SDA)\ \ Continued on next page...\ \ * * *\ \ Carbon Disclosure Project4\ \ The CDP, started in the UK in 2002, has become\ a multinational NGO to which thousands of\ companies disclose their GHG emissions. CDP\ allows a range of protocols for reporting, and\ most companies report their GHG emissions\ to CDP using the GHG Protocol or a protocol\ based on it. Since 2018 the GLEC Framework\ has been recognized by CDP as a mechanism for\ calculating and reporting logistics GHG emissions\ as part of a broader corporate report.\ \ In 2018, CDP released guidance on creating\ transportation emission intensity metrics.8\ In addition to reporting on emissions, CDP’s\ questionnaire helps companies to evaluate\ the relevance of each category’s emissions,\ assess the potential to collaborate with suppliers\ to reduce emissions and evaluate the risks\ associated with supply chain transport emissions.\ \ CDP guidance includes provisions on how to\ consider transportation in Scopes 1 and 2, and\ detailed reporting requirements for each of the\ 15 categories in Scope 3 (listed below).9 Of\ these categories, only five are included in the\ ISO standard, namely: 1. Purchased goods and\ services, 3. Fuel- and energy-related activities,\ 4\. Upstream transport and distribution,\ 9\. Downstream transport and distribution,\ 12\. End-of-life treatment of sold products.\ \ • Category 1: Purchased goods and services.\ This includes WTW emissions from\ transportation embedded in goods and services\ purchased by the reporting organization. These\ \ by the reporting organization.\ • Category 3: Fuel- and energy-related\ emissions (not included in Scope 1 or 2.\ Emissions related to the production and\ distribution of fuels (WTT) burned in Scope 1\ are included here.\ • Category 4: Upstream transportation\ \ • Category 5: Waste generated in operation.\ This category includes WTW emissions related\ to logistics activities used in the disposal and\ treatment of waste from an organization’s waste\ generated in Scope 1 activities.\ • Category 6. Business travel. While\ \ • Category 7. Employee commuting. Same\ as for Category 6.\ • Category 8: Upstream leased assets. WTW\ \ • Category 9: Downstream transportation\ and distribution. This category contains WTW\ emissions from transportation and distribution\ of goods from the reporting organization\ and the end customer. In general, these are\ logistics services not paid for by the reporting\ organization.\ • Category 10: Processing of sold products.\ \ organization.\ • Category 10: Processing of sold products.\ WTW emissions resulting from the transport\ and distribution of sold products, e.g., by a\ stakeholder in the downstream value chain,\ are covered here.\ • Category 11. Use of sold products. These\ \ noted in the GHG Protocol Corporate Value\ Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting\ Standard, such as:\ \ - Size of impact. Use the GLEC Framework\ \ - Size of impact. Use the GLEC Framework\ default factors to conduct a high-level\ assessment of supply chain transport required\ to distribute products, looking for hotspots by\ mode and region.\ \ - Potential to influence reduction. Examine the\ \ \ are covered here.\ • Category 11. Use of sold products. These\ include the lifetime transport emissions from\ the use phase of sold products. This may be\ particularly relevant for transport equipment\ manufacturers.\ • Category 12. End of life treatment for sold\ \ - Potential to influence reduction. Examine the\ potential to collaborate with suppliers around\ emissions reduction, particularly in the\ identified hotspots.\ - Demand by stakeholders. Supply chain\ \ manufacturers.\ • Category 12. End of life treatment for sold\ products. Particularly important for the\ circular economy, transportation emissions\ from the disposal or treatment of a sold\ product are included here.\ • Category 13. Downstream leased assets.\ \ product are included here.\ • Category 13. Downstream leased assets.\ WTW emissions from facilities or vehicles\ leased from the reporting organization,\ i.e., where the reporting organization is the\ lessor, are included in this category.\ • Category 14. Franchises. WTW emissions\ \ - Risk. Evaluate potential regulations or brandrelated risks from supply chain transport\ emissions.\ • Emissions calculation methodology. Let\ \ emissions.\ • Emissions calculation methodology. Let\ everyone know you used the GLEC\ Framework by listing it as the method used to\ calculate your freight transportation emissions.\ • Percentage of emissions calculated using\ \ be considered here.\ • Category 15. Investments. WTW logistics\ emissions from investments made by the\ reporting organization should be tallied here.\ \ * * *\ \ Chapter 2\ Beyond reporting\ \ Emission accounting and reporting is a tool and the purpose\ of the GLEC Framework is to support you in making the best\ use of it both for yourself, in optimizing the activities of your\ organization, and for all of us, in reaching climate targets. The\ GLEC Frameworks supports you in this in all the activities above.\ You’ve put in the effort to calculate and report emissions, and\ gained insight into emission hotspots from your freight\ activities — so now:\ \ • Set targets\ • Use carbon emissions reduction as a KPI\ \ • Use carbon emissions reduction as a KPI\ • Develop reduction plan\ \ • Develop reduction plan\ • Make your efforts visible\ \ • Make your efforts visible\ • Motivate staff\ \ • Leverage sales and procurement\ • Advocate for policy\ \ • Advocate for policy\ \ Different aspects of this list might have a different relevance for your specific situation.\ It is important to start with a first step, regardless of how big or small it is.\ \ * * *\ \ Figure 1\ Emission accounting\ improvement cycle\ \ Set targets\ \ set targets in line with the Paris Agreement\ targets of staying within 1.5°C of global\ warming. Develop goals based on both total\ emissions and emission intensity, ideally on\ a transport mode level. These goals help you\ to identify target values for your emission\ reduction efforts. Once these goals have\ been established, you can use the GLEC\ Framework to evaluate different alternative\ measures you could take and estimate which\ of those measures holds the potential to help\ achieve your goals. Once you have decided\ on the strategy you want to take, the GLEC\ Framework is also the ideal tool to establish\ \ set targets in line with the Paris Agreement\ targets of staying within 1.5°C of global\ warming. Develop goals based on both total\ emissions and emission intensity, ideally on\ a transport mode level. These goals help you\ to identify target values for your emission\ reduction efforts. Once these goals have\ been established, you can use the GLEC\ Framework to evaluate different alternative\ measures you could take and estimate which\ of those measures holds the potential to help\ achieve your goals. Once you have decided\ on the strategy you want to take, the GLEC\ Framework is also the ideal tool to establish\ \ intermediate goals and measure whether you\ \ It is important that the targets you set are\ the starting point for a continuous emission\ \ the starting point for a continuous emission\ reduction process.\ \ By establishing concrete targets not only for\ 2050, but also for the next 5, 10 or 15 years, it\ becomes easier to check if your organization is\ on track.\ \ Use Carbon emission reduction as a KPI\ \ Emission reduction targets need to be\ integrated into the management information\ system of your organization and they need to\ be supported at all levels of your organization,\ led by the directors. Sustainability, and with\ that the reduction of carbon emissions, should\ be a key element of your vision and strategy\ and needs to be supported by strong corporate\ policies favoring low carbon freight and logistics.\ Precise and regular emission accounting is an\ important tool to measure and optimize against\ your efficiency KPIs and minimize your GHG\ emissions. It enables you to:\ • Track progress of emissions over time and\ \ • Track progress of emissions over time and\ against targets, and steer the management\ of emissions\ • Evaluate different transport and logistics\ \ • Identify hot spots in your freight activities\ where efficiency improvements are most\ needed or where easily attainable areas for\ emissions reduction projects exist\ • Hold logistics and operations directors\ \ • Evaluate different transport and logistics\ solutions and compare them\ • Identify hot spots in your freight activities\ \ • Compare yourself to others and determine\ \ where you can do better, share your\ experiences with others, or turn your\ efficiencies into something marketable\ • Prepare for a low-carbon world by applying\ \ efficiencies into something marketable\ • Prepare for a low-carbon world by applying\ a fictive price or price range to emissions\ and use the carbon price as a parallel KPI in\ decision-making.\ \ transport modes, asset utilization, fleet energy\ efficiency and carbon content of energy.\ GLEC Framework supports you in identifying\ which measure of these areas helps you\ \ transport modes, asset utilization, fleet energy\ efficiency and carbon content of energy.29 The\ GLEC Framework supports you in identifying\ which measure of these areas helps you\ \ which measure of these areas helps you\ achieve your emission target. It helps you to\ identify the most pressing areas for action,\ \ identify the most pressing areas for action,\ as well as to prioritize measures and changes\ to your supply chain, transport and logistics\ \ identify the most pressing areas for action,\ as well as to prioritize measures and changes\ to your supply chain, transport and logistics\ \ Develop a reduction plan\ \ | Reduce freight transport demand | Optimize freight transport modes | Increase assets utilization | Improve fleet energy efficiency | Reduce carbon content of energy |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Supply chain restructuring | Modal shift | Load consolidation | Cleaner and efficient technologies | Cleaner and lower carbon fuels |\ | Standardized modules/boxes | Multi-modal optimization | Load optimization | Efficient vehicles and vessels | Electrician |\ | 3D printing | Synchronodality | Logistics centers and warehouse management | Driving behavior | Fuel management |\ | Dematerialization | | | Fleet operation | |\ | Consumer behavior | | | Fleet maintenance | |\ \ Source: McKinnon 2018 and GLEC\ \ * * *\ \ Make your efforts visible\ \ The use of standardized GHG emission\ accounting is a valuable, respected and\ increasingly requested action for companies\ to render their sustainability efforts visible\ and to prove their commitment to meeting\ climate targets. In areas such as financing\ and insurance, as well as in tender processes,\ this commitment is taken into consideration\ for evaluation of organizations. Adopting\ the GLEC Framework v3, and therefore the\ ISO 14083, ensures that organizations are\ prepared for such demands and expectations\ from their stakeholders. It also equips them\ with a KPI corporates can share with their\ customers, who are increasingly looking for\ sustainably produced products and services.\ \ Motivate your staff\ \ The impact of learning about processes and\ procedures within your own organization in the\ course of the data collection for your emission\ accounting should not be underestimated.\ Many companies who introduced GHG\ emission accounting have reported that this\ analysis of transport and logistics processes\ in connection with the data collection has\ already resulted in insights about inefficiency\ and improvement potentials.\ \ Figure 3\ Sales and Procurement – powerful\ levers for emission reduction\ \ Leverage sales and procurement\ \ • Sales. If your organization is making\ sustainable investments such as electric\ vehicles, driver training and fuel-efficient\ routing, this information can be used to drive\ brand value as a provider or user of\ sustainable transport. Emission intensity\ KPIs, such as CO2e per tonne-kilometer,\ provide information that allows your\ investments to be showcased and\ celebrated. This information, in turn, can be\ used as a KPI in logistics planning activities,\ such as choice of transport modes, routes\ or vehicle.\ \ • Procurement. Just as you can provide\ GHG emission accounting information for\ your customers, you can also use the GLEC\ Framework in your procurement, to ensure\ that the services you purchase are\ aligned with your corporate values. The\ Smart Freight Procurement Guidelines\ document provides practical guidance on\ how to integrate climate into freight\ transport and logistics procurement\ practices.10 The Guidelines suggest several\ actions to reduce GHG emissions that can\ be undertaken in the various procurement\ phases, i.e., planning, tendering, contracting\ and contract-based supplier management,\ with subcontracted transport chain\ operators such as freight forwarders,\ carriers and LSPs.\ \ modes, all over the world. Using the GLEC\ Framework v3, which is fully aligned with\ this norm and with reporting programs such\ as CDP and SBTi, is therefore also a way\ of advocating for a universally aligned GHG\ emission calculation format.\ \ Advocate for policy\ \ A main driver for companies to take charge of\ logistics emissions is to avoid governments\ imposing mandatory requirements.\ Companies can use results from emissions\ calculations to demonstrate that reduction\ efforts are successful. This is best done\ through voluntary reporting schemes or green\ freight programs. United States Environmental\ Protection Agency (US EPA) SmartWay,\ ObjectifCO2 in France, and the Low Emissions\ Reduction Scheme in the United Kingdom are\ some examples.\ \ Although the above picture is slowly\ changing, there is still a great potential\ to leverage industry’s expertise and data\ on logistics emissions to enable more\ countries, regions and municipalities to\ better understand and reduce their logistics\ emissions. Through the sharing of data and\ aligning best practices with the principles of\ the GLEC Framework and GLEC Declaration,\ governments and industry can work together\ to track and meet 2050 climate goals.\ \ * * *\ \ Chapter 3\ Outlook & the path\ towards global uptake\ 2\ \ ISO 14083 is a further step realized on the path towards\ global uptake of standardized transport chain GHG emission\ accounting and reporting. With its publication, the basis for\ a globally harmonized emission reduction effort is here. The\ GLEC Framework v3 renders this basis accessible for everyone.\ Furthermore, the GLEC, as platform for industry and experts,\ facilitates the necessary cooperation for further implementation.\ Next important steps are:\ \ Click here to go back to Section 2 contents page\ \ • Data quality assurance\ • Data exchange\ \ • Data exchange\ • Further alignment of emission tools and approaches\ \ • Further alignment of emission tools and approaches\ • Sustainability initiatives\ \ • Sustainability initiatives\ • Assurance\ \ • Assurance\ • Policy\ \ • Policy\ • Research and development\ \ • Research and development\ \ * * *\ \ Data quality assurance\ \ With a standard for emission accounting and\ reporting in place, it is important to develop\ guidance and assurance processes for data\ quality as a next step. Such data quality\ assurance protects companies’ efforts from\ greenwashing by validating their efforts. Along\ with data exchange, these two steps are key\ for a global uptake, and one supports the\ other. Reliable and assured data quality is\ needed for data exchange. At the same time\ data exchange and big data is required for\ establishing meaningful default data basis.\ \ Data exchange\ \ Improved access to reliable data will help\ both business and governments make\ better decisions to collectively reach climate\ goals. To get there, improved data exchange\ and supportive programs, tools, initiatives,\ standards, policy and research are key.\ Access to good quality, preferably\ independently verified, data is a condition\ for transport operators and their customers\ to maximize the impact of applying the\ GLEC Framework. Data collection and\ sharing initiatives exist, such as Clean Cargo\ and SmartWay. For transport operators,\ particularly in the road freight sector, their\ customers, information technology system\ providers and operators of energy efficiency\ and emissions data platforms further efforts\ are needed to:\ • Harmonize the approach to the collection\ \ • Develop consistent formats to enable data\ \ • Incorporate consistent reporting of carbon\ emissions, and hence the development\ and implementation of a widespread GHG\ emission reduction strategy.\ \ greenwashing by validating their efforts. Along We are already in a world of big data, and\ with digital technologies that coordinate the\ complex movement of millions of tonnes of\ goods each day, the amount of data is only\ going to increase. Digitization creates the\ breeding ground for new opportunities to\ design data-driven decarbonization strategies.\ To achieve that, data collection and exchange\ is needed. Smart Freight Centre is currently\ running the iLEAP project (Integrating\ Logistics Emissions and Product Carbon\ Footprints) which aspires to standardize the\ attributes for emissions and activity-related\ data exchange in logistics. Once this work\ matures and is widely adopted as a semantics\ blueprint, the use of the GLEC Framework\ would also naturally scale more globally\ across many geographies and industries. In\ addition, in an effort to research how can B2B\ data exchanges scale, the report of the SFC\ Exchange Network project21 summarizes the\ conditions needed for technology, governance\ and assurance in establishing such an\ interoperable, decentralized industry-wide\ data exchange network.\ Further alignment of emission tools and\ \ Figure 1\ Data, methods, tools and green\ freight programs work together\ to support emission reduction\ \ towards global uptake. The more programs\ are aligned, the more easily companies can\ improve their accounting and reporting,\ as they do not have to adjust to different\ requirements. Full alignment ensures\ transparency on emission accounting and\ reporting requirements. As one of these\ steps, the GLEC Framework has supported\ the development of the ISO 14083 and is\ now presenting itself in the third version fully\ aligned with this norm.\ \ Companies and others who make use of\ external tools or programs should check with\ their providers whether their methodology is\ in conformance with the GLEC Framework v3\ and ISO 14083. Those that are in conformance\ can be recognized though a Smart Freight\ Centre certification label.\ 70\ \ * * *\ \ Sustainability initiatives\ \ A further effective way to realize widespread\ uptake of the GLEC Framework is through\ climate and sustainability initiatives that reach\ beyond the freight sector.\ \ The CDP already recommends using the\ GLEC Framework for companies that report\ logistics emissions to the scheme.14 It is\ also the basis of the SBTi’s guidance for\ the transport sector, allowing companies to\ include logistics in their corporate targets.15\ The GLEC Framework is one of the actions of\ the Global Green Freight Action Plan, which\ is a transport initiative under the Marrakech\ Partnership for Global Climate Action of the\ United Nations Framework Convention on\ Climate Change.16 All initiatives with a climate\ or sustainability focus, including socially\ responsible investment funds, are encouraged\ to follow suit.\ \ The freight sector is not in control of its\ own destiny but merely responds to market\ demand. For that reason, mainstreaming the\ inclusion of logistics GHG emissions through\ the GLEC Framework and ISO 14083, into\ sectoral sustainability initiatives, is key. The\ electronics sector is leading the charge\ through inclusion of the GLEC Framework\ in the Electronic Product Environmental\ Assessment Tool (EPEAT) standards of the\ Green Electronics Council.17 Similarly, it has\ been incorporated in guidance for container\ port terminals.18 Ideally, product labels, such\ as for cotton, food and forestry products, will\ all assess whether logistics emissions is a\ blind spot.\ \ Assurance\ \ Many companies have started to disclose\ sustainability information such as GHG\ emissions in yearly reports or Business-to-\ Business declarations.\ \ Assurance, in the form of verification\ of corporate emission calculations and\ claims and the certification of calculation\ tool methodologies, is important for these\ companies for two reasons: transparency\ towards others, and clarity and reliability\ towards their own management.\ \ Assurance also confirms that the GHG\ Emissions Report has been prepared based\ on an approved approach. As emission\ accounting is used as the basis for important\ strategy decisions by management, it is\ crucial to know that the methodology is\ correct, and the results have been verified.\ \ As far as transparency is concerned,\ independent assurance confirms to external\ partners and stakeholders that accounting and\ reporting are carried out reliably according\ to a specified norm. The assurance is\ confirmation to external partners of the efforts\ made by an organization. At the same time,\ such assurance supports customers to trust\ the reported emissions, and is the basis used\ by governments to establish policy measures.\ \ • Helping organizations to find a competent\ Verification Body,\ \ Methodology development\ • Back the GLEC Framework and now\ \ • Providing a practical emissions reporting\ template that covers all of ISO 14083\ (including guidance in the GLEC\ Framework),\ • Offering high-quality training on Emissions\ \ • Offering high-quality training on Emissions\ Accounting and Reporting tailored to the\ Freight sector.\ \ • Back the GLEC Framework and now\ ISO 14083\ • Back a single global set of fuel emission\ \ Policy\ \ • Back a single global set of fuel emission\ factors, including alternative fuels\ • Support awareness and information\ \ The objective is, through recommending\ policy priorities, to enable policy making\ that is aligned with both high-level targets\ and industry needs and activities. It can be\ used by national governments in countries\ worldwide, the European Commission, and\ related organizations involved in setting\ or implementing policy agenda such as\ development banks and non-governmental\ organizations.\ \ • Give companies incentives to collect high\ quality data and obtain assurance\ • Explore assurance needs in case of\ \ • Data collection and exchange\ • Assurance of logistics emissions data and\ \ • Assurance of logistics emissions data and\ related information\ • Use of results by business, government and\ \ Assurance\ • Give companies incentives to collect high\ \ • Explore assurance needs in case of\ mandatory reporting or carbon pricing\ • Support standardized assurance guidance\ \ mandatory reporting or carbon pricing\ • Support standardized assurance guidance\ and reporting template\ \ • Use of results by business, government and\ other stakeholders\ \ Data collection and exchange\ • Back International Maritime Organisation\ \ • Back International Maritime Organisation\ (IMO)/ Internation Air Transport Association\ (IATA) protocols and alignment\ • Support development of global (or EU) data\ \ • Support development of global (or EU) data\ exchange protocol(s)\ • Explore development of neutral platform and\ \ • Explore development of neutral platform and\ IT architecture with a Transport Management\ System (TMS) link\ • Take a more central role in data exchange\ \ • Establish national green freight programs\ • Make government targets relevant to\ \ * * *\ \ Research\ \ A lot has been achieved through the close\ cooperation between industry and research\ over the past years. Currently, climate change\ and its impacts are becoming more and\ more visible. We are all on a learning curve,\ learning from cooperation and developments\ that have already taken place, and the impact\ of our actions and non-actions. The journey\ to sustainability is therefore continuing and\ requires further adjustment and developments.\ Supportive research is important to inform and\ advance action by industry. Yet it is unclear\ what research is most needed on emission\ accounting and reporting. A research agenda\ was developed that recommends five areas of\ further research to:19\ • Improve input data, emission calculation\ \ countries and industry sectors\ • Standardize the way data is exchanged\ between parties, using protocols and\ platforms and updating transport\ management systems, and address trust\ issues between parties\ • Extend emission calculations to include\ \ • Allow for emissions calculation as part\ of project and infrastructure planning and\ organization of the logistics supply chain\ \ • Extend emission calculations to include\ ICT, infrastructure, packaging and air\ pollutants\ • Allow for emissions calculation as part\ \ • Improve input data, emission calculation\ and disclosure across different modes,\ countries and industry sectors\ • Standardize the way data is exchanged\ \ The aim is to help make informed choices\ when deciding what new research to carry\ out or fund. It can be used by national\ and international governments, as well\ as research institutes, industry and civil\ society. It is emphasized that efforts should\ involve industry, accompanied by pilots for\ testing and validation in cooperation with\ research institutes.\ \ In conclusion\ \ Society and your business need you\ to track and reduce carbon emissions\ from freight transport. We believe the\ GLEC Framework plays a crucial role in\ this by providing a common language to\ track climate impacts. Adopt the GLEC\ Framework and ISO 14083 today!\ \ * * *\ \ ## References\ \ **2**\ \ 1 Smart Freight Centre & WBCSD (2023): End-to-End GHG Reporting Guidance; on [https://smartfreightcentre.org/en/about-sfc/news/new-guidance-developed-by-30-global-companies-to-support-ghg-emissions-data-sharing-across-the-logistics-value-chain/](https://smartfreightcentre.org/en/about-sfc/news/new-guidance-developed-by-30-global-companies-to-support-ghg-emissions-data-sharing-across-the-logistics-value-chain/) ; last visited 02/10/2024 2 ISO 14083:2023 Greenhouse gases — Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations (2023); [https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html](https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html) ; last accessed 02/10/2024 3 GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard on: [https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard](https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard) last accessed 02/10/2024 4 CDP on [https://www.cdp.net/en](https://www.cdp.net/en) 5 Science Based Targets Initiative on [https://sciencebasedtargets.org/](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/) 6 McKinnon, A.C.(2018): Decarbonizing Logistics: Distributing goods in a low carbon world. Kogan Page 7 SBTi and SFC (2023): Smart Freight Centre and the Science Based Targets initiative join forces to further drive transport sector decarbonization on: [https://sciencebasedtargets.org/news/smart-freight-centre-and-the-science-based-targets-initiative-join-forces-to-further-drive-transport-sector-decarbonization](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/news/smart-freight-centre-and-the-science-based-targets-initiative-join-forces-to-further-drive-transport-sector-decarbonization) ; last viewed 02/10/2024 8 CDP Technical Note: Measuring emissions intensity of transport movements; on [https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance\_docs/pdfs/000/001/690/original/CDP-technical-note-emissions-intensity-of-transport.pdf?1610104669](https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/001/690/original/CDP-technical-note-emissions-intensity-of-transport.pdf?1610104669) ; last viewed 02/10/2024 9 GHG Protocol Scope 3 Calculation Guidance; on [https://ghgprotocol.org/scope-3-calculation-guidance-2](https://ghgprotocol.org/scope-3-calculation-guidance-2) ; last viewed on 02/10/2024 10 Smart Freight Centre and WBCSD: Smart Freight Procurement Guidelines (2019). ISBN 978-90-82-68790-3 on: [https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Smart\_Freight\_Procurement\_Guidelines\_2019\_-\_FINAL\_Ob2JR8g.pdf](https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Smart_Freight_Procurement_Guidelines_2019_-_FINAL_Ob2JR8g.pdf) ; last viewed on 02/10/2024 11 Gota, S. and Peet, K.: Proposed Avenues for NDCs (2016) 12 International Transport Forum ITF: How serious are countries about decarbonising transport?; on: [https://www.itf-oecd.org/ndc-tracker/en](https://www.itf-oecd.org/ndc-tracker/en) ; last viewed on 02/10/2024 13 Smart Freight Centre: Green Freight Programms Worldwide (2017) 14 CDP Climate Change Scoring Methodology (2018) 15 SBTi Science Based Targets initiative: Transport Science-Based Target Setting (2018) 16 Paris Process on Mobility and Climate: Marrakesh Partnership for Global Climate Action Transport Initiatives: Stock-take on Action Toward Implementation of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development: Overview of Process (2018) 17 National Science Foundation, and American National Standard NSF/ANSI 429:2018 Environmental Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility Assessment of Servers (2018) 18 EU Ports European Economic Interest Group: Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Footprinting for Container Terminals (2019) 19 Smart Freight Centre: Policy Recommendations for Logistics Emissions Accounting and Reporting (2019) 20 Logistics Emission Accounting and Reduction Network (LEARN) project: Research and Development Agenda Towards Eco-Labelling for Transport Chains (2018) 21 Smart Freight Centre, Think-it and British Standards Institution. SFC Exchange Network – Proof of Concept Evaluation Report (2023); [https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/SFCExchangeNetwork\_PoC\_Evaluation\_Report\_2023.pdf](https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/SFCExchangeNetwork_PoC_Evaluation_Report_2023.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ \ * * *\ \ ## Data\ \ ### Module 1 Emission factors\ \ ### Module 2 Default fuel efficiency and GHG\ \ ### emission intensity values\ \ ### Module 3\ \ **3**\ \ ### Refrigerant emission factors\ \ ### Module 4 Examples of emission calculations -\ \ ### step-by-step\ \ ### References\ \ _Click on each icon to go straight to the chapter_ _Click here to go back to Structure of the document page_\ \ * * *\ \ 3\ \ Module 1\ Emission factors\ \ Emission factors play a crucial role in the calculation of\ transport emissions and the calculation of carbon footprint.\ They provide a consistent metric to convert the fuel and\ energy used to power freight transportation into greenhouse\ gas emission values.\ \ Generally, variations tend to be relatively low\ and the potential feedstocks and production\ processes for conventional fuels are relatively\ well known. In contrast “new fuels,” including\ some renewable fuels and fuels quoted as\ having low life cycle GHG emissions, tend\ to have a less well-established production\ process. They have a greater variability\ over the full life cycle as well as a wider\ range of possible feedstocks. Therefore,\ generalization of emission factors for biofuels\ is less appropriate and could lead to greater\ uncertainties and inaccuracies, at least under\ current market conditions. Full consideration\ of emission factors for “new\ fuels” can be necessary, even if this involves\ a time-consuming and costly process. This is\ applicable to pure biofuels as well as higher-\ blend products. It is not necessary for blends\ with relatively low percentages (5‒10%) of\ biofuels with conventional fuels, which are\ commonplace.\ \ * * *\ \ How we source the emission factors\ \ It is vital that emission factors are based on\ the most credible sources and are developed\ by specialists. Full development of emission\ factors is outside the technical scope of the\ Global Logistics Emission Council (GLEC).\ \ Instead, we make use of the best available\ sources in line with the approach developed\ for, and described in, Annex J of ISO 14083.\ The ISO 14083 approach recommends\ that the emissions associated with fuel and\ energy production infrastructure are included,\ although this is an approach which is not yet\ commonplace across emission factor sources.\ \ The emission factors quoted in this GLEC\ Framework module are presented in the same\ layout as ISO 14083, i.e., the tables present\ CO2e emissions for the well-to-tank (WTT),\ tank-to-wheel (TTW) and full well-to-wheel\ (WTW) phases of the fuel cycle. Values are\ shown by mass and energy content. Density is\ provided where appropriate so that emissions\ per volume can also be calculated, given\ that conventional liquid fuels are generally\ sold by volume. We include a value for non-\ CO2 operational GHG emissions. Non-CO2\ operational greenhouse gases include methane\ (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons\ (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur\ hexafluoride (SF6) and other fluorinated gases.\ We also include the biogenic CO2 operational\ values for the bio-based fuels as required for\ a complete Scope 3 reporting under the GHG\ Protocol.\ \ The input data is from the latest updates of\ the same sources. The sources that have seen\ significant revisions, namely the release of the,\ \ The use of ecoinvent 3.9.1 is particularly\ significant because its content was updated\ following identification of previously unknown/\ unquantified high levels of methane venting\ direct to atmosphere in the fossil fuel extraction\ phase. The result is that the energy production\ (WTT) emissions are significantly higher, in some\ cases up to 50%, for fossil and fossil- derived\ fuels than previous energy production emission\ estimates.\ \ We have taken all possible steps to provide a\ detailed starting point for companies wishing\ to calculate emissions in a harmonized and\ representative way. However, the higher energy\ provision (WTT) values that result from the\ ecoinvent update do highlight how easy it is\ for emission factors from different sources to\ become significantly misaligned with each other\ until consensus is re-established.\ \ Methane slip\ \ These are based on new values of GHGs, for the Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Therefore,\ values in Annex K of ISO 14083, which is based the potential for leakage of methane, in the\ upstream chain, the refueling and at the engine,\ must be taken into account when calculating\ the WTW emissions of compressed natural gas\ (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuels.\ Venting of methane from refueling the tank or\ at various points further up the supply chain is\ considered in the WTT component of the overall\ emission factor.\ (WTT) emissions are significantly higher, in some\ \ the aim of maximizing overlap with nationally\ published values, existing transportation standards\ and values used by the representative UN bodies\ for air and water transportation.\ \ However, several countries including France, UK,\ Japan, Australia and Canada have published\ national emission factors. Emission factor\ guidance is also provided for air transport via\ Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for\ International Aviation ( CORSIA), whilst the IMO\ published its own WTW emission factors . Much of\ this work has been conducted in partial isolation\ and may lead to confusion and uncertainty in the\ short term as to which values to use in the near\ future.\ \ National, regional and international values\ \ (WTT) emissions are significantly higher, in some\ The TTW emissions must be considered in\ a slightly more complex way than for other\ fuels. The impact of any unburned fuel that is\ released to the atmosphere, known as “methane\ slip,” is calculated using the GWP of methane\ alongside the emissions that result from the\ combustion of the majority of the fuel. The\ extent of the methane slip varies according\ to the vehicle technology and any emission\ abatement technology that is fitted. Furthermore,\ the legislation that applies to engines used in\ become significantly misaligned with each other different situations varies, with different limits\ on methane emissions applying by application,\ location and mode. The result is that it can be\ Because the emission factors of renewable fuels difficult to put a definitive value on emissions\ tend to have a much wider variability, the values from the use of LNG or CNG. We have included\ a first estimate of methane slip and consequent\ higher end of the possible range). We encourage impact on the TTW emissions, differentiating by\ engine technology where information is available.\ up by the associated documentation, whenever\ \ The emission factors have been chosen with\ \ For countries where there is no clearly stated\ emission factor, we recommend that you use the\ higher of the values quoted for the fuel in question\ in the China, European and North American tables,\ in order to avoid accidental understatement of the\ results.It is likely that all the emission factors will\ need to be further updated in subsequent versions\ of the Framework as knowledge of the subject\ develops further.\ 76\ \ * * *\ \ Emission factors: European sources\ \ | Energy carrier | Example application | Lower heating valueMJ/kg | Densitykg/l | GHG emission(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Gasoline | | 42.5 | 0.74 | 75.0 | 99.0 |\ | Ethanol(40% maize,35% sugar beet,25% wheat) | | 27.0 | 0.78 | 0.1 | 48.0 |\ | Diesel | | 42.8 | 0.83 | 75.3 | 97.8 |\ | Biodiesel(50% rapeseed,40% used cooking oil,10% soybean) | | 37.0 | 0.89 | 1.2 | 35.4 |\ | Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) | | 45.5 | 0.55 | 67.0 | 90.1 |\ | Hydrogen(from SMR) | | 120.0 | n.a. | 0.0 | 101.3 |\ | HVO\*/HEFA(SAF)(50% rapeseed,50% used cooking oil) | | 44.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 | 29.7 |\ | Electricity European average(EU27,2021,including average losses) | | n.a. | n.a. | 0.0 | 99.0 |\ | Compressed Natural Gas(CNG) | Europe spark ignition truck | 49.2 | n.a. | 56.1 | 77.1 |\ \ | | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg | Non-CO2 GHG emissions(operational/TTW)g CO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in g CO2e/g | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 3.19 | 4.21 | 0.14 | n.a. | ecoinvent v3.9.13 |\ | | 0.00 | 1.30 | 0.14 | 1.91 | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 3.22 | 4.19 | 1.16 | n.a. | ecoinvent v3.9.1 cut-off3 |\ | | 0.04 | 1.31 | 1.16 | 2.83 | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 3.05 | 4.10 | 0.23 | n.a. | ecoinvent v3.9.1 cut-off3 |\ | | 0.00 | 12.16 | 0 | n.a. | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 0.05 | 1.31 | 1.16 | 3.12 | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a. | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 2.76 | 3.79 | 0.94 | n.a. | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ \ * * *\ \ Emission factors: European sources\ \ | Energy carrier | Example application | Lower heating valueMJ/kg | Densitykg/l | GHG emission(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) | Europe spark ignition truck | 48.0 | n.a. | 57.4 | 83.1 |\ | Bio-CNG(40% maize,40% manure,20% biowaste) | Europe spark ignition truck | 50.0 | n.a. | 0.9 | 25.7 |\ | Bio-LNG(40% maize,40% manure,20% biowaste) | Europe spark ignition truck | 50.0 | n.a. | 0.9 | 29.8 |\ | Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) | otto duel fuel ship(medium speed) | 48.0 | n.a. | 77.6 | 96.1 |\ | Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) | otto duel fuel ship(slow speed) | 48.0 | n.a. | 67.5 | 86.0 |\ \ | | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg | Non-CO2GHG emissions(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in gCO2e/g | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 2.75 | 3.99 | 0.93 | n.a. | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 0.05 | 1.28 | 0.93 | 2.86 | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 0.05 | 1.49 | 0.93 | 2.86 | ifeu, infras&Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 3.73 | 4.61 | 20.33 | n.a. | IMO MEPC8128 |\ | | 3.24 | 4.13 | 10.20 | n.a. | IMO MEPC8128 |\ \ ^ Factors based on long distance/heavy duty road transport only, as LNG is not recommended for light duty/urban distribution.\ \ • GHG emission factors for biofuels can vary considerably according to feedstock mix and process. Certified waste stream\ feedstocks can lead to low or even negative emission factors under certain circumstances; emission factors need to be carefully\ checked in such circumstances to avoid unintended consequences and overstatement of emission reduction benefits.\ • Bio-LNG and bio-CNG based on GHG reduction threshold to qualify under the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II.)8\ \ • Bio-LNG and bio-CNG based on GHG reduction threshold to qualify under the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II.)8\ • Emission factors sourced from ecoinvent v3.9.1 and the European electricity emission factor above are the only ones confirmed\ \ • Emission factors sourced from ecoinvent v3.9.1 and the European electricity emission factor above are the only ones confirmed\ to include fuel and energy production infrastructure in the WTT element as this is a new requirement.\ • Electricity emission factor above is from a different source to that used to calculate EU rail default emission intensities as we are\ \ • Electricity emission factor above is from a different source to that used to calculate EU rail default emission intensities as we are\ unable to quote the IEA values here.\ \ * * *\ \ Emission factors: North American Sources\ \ | Energy carrier | Lower heating valueMJ/kg | Densitykg/l | GHG emission(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Gasoline | 41.7 | 0.749 | 73 | 89.6 |\ | Ethanol(corn) | 27 | 0.789 | 0.33 | 55.9 |\ | Diesel | 42.6 | 0.847 | 75.7 | 90.9 |\ | Biodiesel(soybean) | 37.7 | 0.881 | 0.78 | 31.1 |\ | HVO(tallow) | 44 | 0.779 | 0.78 | 18.3 |\ | Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) | 46.6 | 0.508 | 64.8 | 77.8 |\ | Electricity US average(including average losses) | n.a | n.a. | 0 | 104.3 |\ | Compressed Natural Gas(CNG)-North America Spark ignition truck | 47.1 | n.a. | 57.4 | 74 |\ | Liquified Natural Gas(LNG)-North America spark ignition truck | 48.6 | n.a. | 57.6 | 76.6 |\ \ | Con | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg | Non-CO2 GHG emissions(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in gCO2e/g | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 3.04 | 3.74 | 0.30 | n.a. | GREET 20239 |\ | | 0.01 | 1.51 | 0.33 | 1.91 | GREET 20239 |\ | | 3.22 | 3.87 | 0.82 | n.a. | GREET 20239 |\ | | 0.03 | 1.17 | 0.78 | 2.83 | GREET 20239 |\ | | 0.03 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 3.12 | GREET 20239 |\ | | 3.02 | 3.63 | 0.30 | n.a. | GREET 20239 |\ | | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a. | USEPA eGRID Summary Tables,202210 |\ | | 2.70 | 3.49 | 1.20 | n.a. | GREET 20239 |\ | | 2.80 | 3.72 | 1.10 | n.a. | GREET 20239 |\ \ * * *\ \ Emission factors: China sources\ \ | Energy carrier | Lower heating valueMJ/kg | Densitykg/l | GHG emission(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg | Non-CO2 GHG emissions(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in gCO2e/g |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Gasoline | 43.1 | 0.74 | 69.8 | 92.0 | 3.01 | 3.96 | 1.86 | n.a. |\ | Diesel | 42.7 | 0.83 | 73.8 | 96.2 | 3.15 | 4.10 | 1.18 | n.a. |\ | Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) | 50.2 | 0.54 | 63.7 | 85.7 | 3.20 | 4.30 | 1.90 | n.a. |\ | Electricity-China Average | n.a | n.a | n.a. | 158.4 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |\ | Liquified Natural Gas(LNG)-China spark ignition truck | 44.2 | 0.42 | 65.4 | 93.2 | 2.89 | 4.12 | 3.56 | n.a. |\ \ • China fuel emission factors are mainly calculated based on the official data and aligned with latest IPCC AR6 GWP100.\ Electricity values are based on grid emission factors from China.\ • European fuel emission factor (TTW to WTW ratio) from the GLEC Framework 3.0 have been used to uplift the TTW to\ \ Electricity values are based on grid emission factors from China.\ • European fuel emission factor (TTW to WTW ratio) from the GLEC Framework 3.0 have been used to uplift the TTW to\ WTW values for China emission factors.\ \ * * *\ \ GHG Emissions from Electricity\ \ The understanding of what is included in an\ electricity GHG emissions factor, primarily\ based on ISO 14083 requirements can\ be seen in Figure 1. This entails different\ electricity stages upstream (fuel production)\ and combustion (power generation) emissions.\ As the figure points out, part of the electricity\ is used for own-use, load-balancing (e.g.\ by pumping), and trade. Transmission and\ distribution losses are the difference between\ supplied and consumed electricity. The larger\ arrows in the figure represent larger amounts\ of electricity available, and their darker color\ represents a “dirtier” mix, so a higher carbon\ intensity of electricity\ \ For Europe, Figure 2 represents the GHG\ emissions factors from different types of energy\ sources. The fossil-fuel-powered electricity\ mix will have a higher emission factor than\ renewable and nuclear-powered. The figure\ provides more information on upstream\ emissions (up to 100 gCO2e/kWh) ) for fossil\ fuels (or 10 to 20% of the total) should be\ included in the calculation. On the other hand,\ the emissions from renewable power generation\ infrastructure range from 10 to 40 gCO2e/kWh.\ The emissions from this will only become a\ significant portion of the total when the share\ of renewable energy is high. For example, if the\ \ Average transmission and distribution (T&D)\ losses varies depending on type of voltage\ distribution (i.e., low to high voltage grid\ connections). The final consumption at high\ and medium voltage sites are about 1 to 10%\ lower than at low voltage sites, reflecting about\ 1 to 78 g CO2e per kWh of consumption as\ compared to the EU average which is 3 to 4%\ and 15 to 19 g CO2e per kWh of consumption.\ Most databases typically provide a national\ average for the T&D losses, which is suitable\ for emissions disclosure.\ \ Figure 1\ Carbon intensity from upstream activities to consumption (Moro & Lonza, 2018)\ \ Figure 2\ GHG emission factors from electricity producing facilities in EU27 (Scarlat et al.,2022)\ \ * * *\ \ The final consumption emission factor provides\ the most appropriate basis to then compare the\ emissions intensity of an EV and diesel truck.\ Figure 3 provides a country-level comparison\ for emissions from electricity consumption\ in European countries in 2019 (Scarlat et\ al., 2022), as well as a comparison with the\ emission intensity of a diesel truck (Smart\ Freight Centre, 2019).38 The values include fuel\ production, power generation, infrastructure,\ trade, and transmission & distribution losses.\ The analysis shows that approximately half\ provide an electricity emission factor less than\ that of a diesel truck, and only 8 countries\ reduce emissions by at least 50%. An EV\ operating within the EU-27 would have an\ emission intensity reduction of 16%. In the US,\ based on eGRID subregion 2021, which does\ not include the effects of fuel production and\ infrastructure, only 3 out of 27 regions provide\ an emissions reduction of more than 25%.\ \ Figure 3\ Full electricity emission factor for European countries in 2019\ (Adapted data from Scarlat et al., 2022)\ \ * * *\ \ Table 1 compares several prominent databases.\ ISO 14083 recommends using the best\ available national GHG emission factors.\ Considering reporting of the global footprint of\ Electricity, the IEA emission factor database,\ which is updated annually would have seemed\ to be sufficient. However, based on Table 1, the\ database does not include the full spectrum\ of emission categories for electricity such as\ emissions from fuel production.\ \ Other national databases or emission factors,\ such as supplied by the Dutch, UK and US\ government include power generation, trade\ effects, and transmission and distribution\ losses.The Dutch database, however, provides\ the fuel production emission factors, and as\ reference the emissions from infrastructure,\ based on the analysis CE Delft (2022).40\ \ EcoTransIT World (2024) and Ecoinvent v3.9.1\ provides emission factors at the country-level,\ with electricity mix based on generation and\ consumption.\ \ Table 1\ A comparison of selected emission factor sources\ \ | Emission factor source | Scope | Emission factor units |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | IEA Emission Factors(annual)39 | Global scope, regional and country-level | gCO2e/kWh |\ | Netherlands Government's CO2 Emissiefactoren | Netherlands | gCO2e/kWh |\ | UK Government's Greenhouse gas reporting conversation factors 2023 | UK | gCO2e/kWh |\ | eGrid202210 | US,eGrid regions | Lb or kg gCO2e/kWh |\ | EcoTransIT2024 | Global scope, regional and country-level | gCO2e/kWh |\ | Ecoinventv39.1 | Global scope, regional and country-level, division by low, medium and high voltage network | kgCO2e/kWh |\ \ | Fuel production | Power generation | Power generation infrastructure | Transmission and distribution losses | Trade included |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |\ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |\ | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |\ | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |\ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |\ | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |\ \ * * *\ \ Marine Fuel Emission Factors\ \ | Energy carrier | Example applications | Lower heating valueMJ/kg | GHG emission(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(operationalkgCO2e/kg) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | HFO(VLSFO) | | 40.2 | 78.7 | 95.5 | 3.16 |\ | HFO(HSHFO) | | 40.2 | 78.7 | 92.8 | 3.16 |\ | LFO(ULSFO) | | 41.2 | 77.7 | 90.9 | 3.20 |\ | LFO(VLSFO) | | 41.2 | 77.7 | 90.9 | 3.20 |\ | MDO/MGO(ULSFO) | | 42.7 | 76.3 | 94.0 | 3.26 |\ | MDO/MGO(VLSFO) | | 42.7 | 76.3 | 90.7 | 3.26 |\ | LPG(propane) | | 46.3 | 65.9 | 73.7 | 3.05 |\ | LPG(butane) | | 46.3 | 66.5 | 74.3 | 3.08 |\ | LNG | Otto dual fuel(medium speed) | 48.0 | 77.6 | 96.1 | 3.73 |\ | LNG | Otto dual fuel(slow speed) | 48.0 | 67.5 | 86.0 | 3.24 |\ | LNG | LNG Diesel | 48.0 | 58.8 | 77.3 | 2.82 |\ | LNG | LBSI | 48.0 | 72.6 | 91.1 | 3.48 |\ | LNG | Steam turbine&boilers | 48.0 | 58.0 | 76.5 | 2.78 |\ | Bio-LNG | Otto dual fuel(medium speed) | 50.0 | 19.6 | 48.5 | 0.98 |\ | Bio-LNG | Otto dual fuel(slow speed) | 50.0 | 9.8 | 38.7 | 0.49 |\ | Bio-LNG | LNG Diesel | 50.0 | 1.4 | 30.3 | 0.07 |\ | Bio-LNG | LBSI | 50.0 | 14.7 | 43.6 | 0.74 |\ | Bio-LNG | Steam turbine&boilers | 50.0 | 0.7 | 29.6 | 0.03 |\ \ | Conversion (TTW) | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg | Non-CO2GHG emissions(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in gCO2e/g | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 3.84 | 1.26 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.73 | 1.26 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.75 | 1.23 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.75 | 1.23 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 4.01 | 1.19 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.87 | 1.19 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.41 | 1.10 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.44 | 1.10 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 4.61 | 20.33 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 4.13 | 10.20 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.71 | 1.47 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 4.37 | 15.26 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 3.67 | 0.68 | n.a. | IMO MEPC 8128 |\ | | 2.43 | 19.62 | 2.86 | IMO MEPC 8128and ifeu, infras& Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 1.94 | 9.84 | 2.86 | IMO MEPC 8128and ifeu, infras& Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 1.52 | 1.42 | 2.86 | IMO MEPC 8128and ifeu, infras& Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 2.18 | 14.73 | 2.86 | IMO MEPC 8128and ifeu, infras& Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | | 1.48 | 0.65 | 2.86 | IMO MEPC 8128and ifeu, infras& Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ \ * * *\ \ Marine Fuel Emission Factors\ \ | Energy carrier | Example applications | Lower heating value MJ/kg | GHG emission (operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg | Non-CO2GHG emissions(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in gCO2e/g | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Biodiesel(FAME) | | 37.2 | 1.4 | 22.2 | 0.05 | 0.82 | 1.36 | 2.83 | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8 |\ | HVO | | 44.0 | 1.2 | 16.1 | 0.05 | 0.71 | 1.15 | 3.12 | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8 |\ | Hydrogen | From Natural gas | 120.0 | 0.0 | 132.0 | 0.00 | 15.84 | 0.00 | n.a. | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8 |\ | Ammonia | From Natural gas | 18.6 | 0.0 | 121.0 | 0.00 | 2.25 | 0.00 | n.a. | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8 |\ | Methanol | From Natural gas | 19.9 | 68.3 | 100.6 | 1.36 | 2.00 | -0.81 | n.a. | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8;&ifeu, infras & Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | Bio-methanol | | 19.9 | 0.2 | 16.4 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 1.38 | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8;&ifeu, infras & Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ | Bio-ethanol | | 26.8 | 0.1 | 48.0 | 0.00 | 1.29 | 0.14 | 1.91 | Fuel.EU Maritime amended7&RED II8;&ifeu, infras & Fraunhofer IML,202418 |\ \ The GHG emission factors presented is based on the latest IMO GHG data as published in the\ output from MEPC81. Where MEPC81 has not provided a necessary data point as input to the\ calculation this data has been sought from the final Fuel.EU regulation. If there is still an input\ data gap then the required data has been sourced from an alternative, well-established, peerreviewed source for GHG emission factors that follows the approach set out in ISO 14083 and\ used in the GLEC Framework.\ \ • LFO and LPG are lower due to a lower WTT contribution to the total; potentially due to the new\ source (Fuel.EU) lagging on acknowledging the latest knowledge on methane emissions in the\ production phase.\ • LNG and Bio-LNG in dual fuel medium speed engines are higher as the latest IMO value is\ \ • Biodiesel (FAME) and HVO are lower as IMO now includes WTT values that were not previously\ present and which are lower than the RED II values included previously.\ • The IMO or Fuel.EU do not have complete emission factor estimates for production of hydrogen\ \ • The IMO or Fuel.EU do not have complete emission factor estimates for production of hydrogen\ or ammonia from non-fossil fuel sources and limited emission factor estimates for methanol or\ ethanol.\ \ * * *\ \ Air Fuel Emission Factors\ \ | Energy carrier | Lower heating value MJ/kg | Density kg/l | GHG emission (operational/TTW)g CO2e/MJ |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Jet Kerosene(jet A1 and Jet A) | 43.1 | 0.802 | 73.9 |\ \ | GHG emission(total/WTW)g CO2e/MJ | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kg CO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kg CO2e/kg | Non-CO2 GHG emissions(operational/TTW)g CO2e/MJ | Biogenic GHG emissions(operational/TTW)in gCO2e/g | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 89.0 | 3.18 | 3.84 | 0.74 | n.a. | Revised Calculations |\ \ In air transport context, GHG emission factors provide a consistent metric to convert the fuel/\ energy used on board to transport freight or passenger into GHG emission values. The efforts\ were made previously to align the emission factors between GLEC framework and relevant IATA\ recommended practices. This was on a tank to wheel (TTW or operational emission) basis and\ only covered the CO2 component of GHG emissions. However, with wider acknowledgement\ of well to wheel/wake, CO2e reporting, for example via the release of ISO 14083, together with\ the uptake of SAF in the aviation sector means that the time has come to realign emission\ factors across the GLEC Framework and the IATA recommended practices. There are clear\ differences between the North American and European values, stemming from multiple sources\ that may reflect geographical variations in input data and fuel production processes, as well as\ methodological differences.\ \ ecoinvent is a not-for-profit association based in Zurich, Switzerland. Its main activity is the\ publication of the ecoinvent database, which is used worldwide as a background database in\ LCA and other environmental assessments including a comprehensive set of emission factors for\ a range of energy carriers. The latest database, version 3.9.1 contains various updates including\ expanded data on the global production of natural gas and crude oil. The update also integrates\ data on the flaring of natural gas from the Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR) of\ the World Bank and on methane emissions from gas venting and fugitive emission source from\ the International Energy Agency’s Methane Tracker 2022. In combination with an update to the\ regional consumption mixes for crude petroleum oil to North America and Europe this has led to\ a significant change in the energy production emissions for fossil fuels.\ \ ecoinvent\ ecoinvent is a not-for-profit association based in Zurich, Switzerland. Its main activity is the\ \ Notes about main sources\ \ \\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\ \ GREET\ The vast majority of the North American values are derived from the 2023 GREET model\ \ GREET\ The vast majority of the North American values are derived from the 2023 GREET model\ published by Argonne National Laboratory. The values in GREET are presented for the 9\ various phases of fuel production and use for a wide range of vehicle types.\ \ IFEU/EcoTransIT\ The applied calculation method closely follows the methodological rules of the RED and\ RED II, extending the scope from greenhouse gas emissions to include non-GHG pollutants.\ The tool used for this was created as part of the BioEm project11 and adapted for the\ purposes here in the databases. It includes direct and upstream emissions from cultivation,\ processing and transport of raw materials, intermediate products and biofuels to the filling\ station.\ The BioEm tool also enables the inclusion of emissions from land-use change. However,\ \ \\mathrm{(C O\_{2}e)}\ \ IFEU/EcoTransIT\ The applied calculation method closely follows the methodological rules of the RED and\ \ station.\ The BioEm tool also enables the inclusion of emissions from land-use change. However,\ this was excluded for the emission factors determined here. The reason for this is the lack of\ consensus among experts on an agreed methodological approach. This would have to be\ revised for future updates, as factors for land-use change have been recently published with\ the CORSIA emission factors,4 meaning such factors now enter into general use.\ \ IMO MEPC 81\ These guidelines provide the GHG intensity assessment for all fuels and other energy\ carriers (e.g. electricity) used on board a ship and aim at covering the whole fuel life cycle\ (with specific boundaries) from feedstock extraction/cultivation/ recovery, feedstock\ conversion to a fuel product, transportation as well as distribution/bunkering, and fuel\ utilization on board a ship. The scope includes well-to-tank (WTT), tank-to wake (TTW), and\ well-to-wake (WTW). The GHG emissions are calculated as CO2-equivalent (CO2e), using the\ global warming potential (GWP100) as per the fifth IPCC Assessment Report,\ \ IMO MEPC 81\ These guidelines provide the GHG intensity assessment for all fuels and other energy\ \ * * *\ \ Biofuel Blends\ \ In many countries national regulations specify a minimum and/or maximum content of biofuel to be mixed with\ fossil fuel. It is recommended that GHG emission factors for such fuels are calculated based on the percentage\ composition of the fuel. This may be defined by energy content, volume, or mass according to the local legislation.\ Because of the variation in legislation from country to country it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of\ such emission factors. However, the following tables does provide an indication of how it would work for gasoline/\ ethanol, diesel/ biodiesel and diesel/HVO blends.\ \ | Energy carrier | Lower heating valueMJ/kg | Densitykg/l | Volumetric energy densityMJ/l |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Diesel-Biofuel Blends Emission factors: Europe | | | |\ | 100% Diesel | 42.8 | 0.832 | 35.6 |\ | 99% Diesel, 1% Biodiesel | 42.7 | 0.833 | 35.6 |\ | 98% Diesel, 2% Biodiesel | 42.7 | 0.833 | 35.6 |\ | 95% Diesel, 5% Biodiesel | 42.5 | 0.835 | 35.5 |\ | 93% Diesel, 7% Biodiesel | 42.4 | 0.836 | 35.4 |\ | 90% Diesel, 10% Biodiesel | 42.2 | 0.838 | 35.4 |\ | 80% Diesel, 20% Biodiesel | 41.6 | 0.844 | 35.1 |\ | 50% Diesel, 50% Biodiesel | 39.9 | 0.862 | 34.4 |\ | 100% Biodiesel(50% rapeseed,40% used cooking oil,10% soybean) | 37.0 | 0.892 | 33.0 |\ \ | GHG emission(energy provision/WTT)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(operational/TTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(total/WTW)gCO2e/MJ | GHG emission(energy provision/WTT)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(operational/TTW)kgCO2e/kg | GHG emission(total/WTW)kgCO2e/kg |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 22.6 | 75.3 | 97.8 | 0.97 | 3.22 | 4.19 |\ | 22.7 | 74.5 | 97.2 | 0.97 | 3.19 | 4.15 |\ | 22.8 | 73.8 | 96.6 | 0.97 | 3.15 | 4.12 |\ | 23.1 | 71.6 | 94.7 | 0.98 | 3.04 | 4.03 |\ | 23.4 | 70.1 | 93.4 | 0.99 | 2.97 | 3.96 |\ | 23.7 | 67.9 | 91.6 | 1.00 | 2.86 | 3.87 |\ | 24.9 | 60.4 | 85.3 | 1.04 | 2.52 | 3.55 |\ | 28.4 | 38.2 | 66.6 | 1.13 | 1.52 | 2.66 |\ | 34.2 | 1.2 | 35.4 | 1.27 | 0.04 | 1.31 |\ \ * * *\ \ Lower\ heating\ value\ MJ/kg\ \ Volumetric\ energy\ density\ MJ/l\ \ GHG\ emission\ (operational/\ TTW) g CO2e\ /MJ\ \ GHG\ emission\ (total/WTW)\ g CO2e/MJAim higher\ \ Gasoline-Ethanol Blends Emission factors: Europe\ \ GHG\ emission\ (energy\ Aim higher provision/\ WTT)\ kg CO2e/kg\ \ GHG\ emission\ (operational/\ TTW)\ kg CO2e/kg\ \ GHG\ emission\ (total/WTW)\ kg CO2e/kg\ \ | 100% Diesel |\ | --- |\ | 90% Diesel, 10% HVO |\ | 80% Diesel, 20% HVO |\ | 50% Diesel, 50% HVO |\ | 100% HVO\*/HEFA(SAF)(50% rapeseed,50% used cooking oil) |\ \ | 42.8 | 0.832 |\ | --- | --- |\ | 42.9 | 0.826 |\ | 43.0 | 0.820 |\ | 43.4 | 0.801 |\ | 44.0 | 0.770 |\ \ Diesel-HVO Blends Emission factors: North America\ \ | 100% Diesel | 42.6 | 0.847 | 36.1 | 15.2 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 90% Diesel, 10% HVO | 42.7 | 0.826 | 35.3 | 23.2 |\ | 80% Diesel, 20% HVO | 42.9 | 0.820 | 35.1 | 23.8 |\ | 50% Diesel, 50% HVO | 43.3 | 0.801 | 34.7 | 25.6 |\ | 100% HVO (tallow) | 44.0 | 0.779 | 34.3 | 17.5 |\ \ | 75.7 | 90.9 | 0.65 | 3.22 | 3.87 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 67.9 | 91.0 | 0.99 | 2.90 | 3.89 |\ | 60.4 | 84.2 | 1.02 | 2.59 | 3.61 |\ | 38.2 | 63.8 | 1.11 | 1.65 | 2.76 |\ | 0.8 | 18.3 | 0.77 | 0.0343 | 0.81 |\ \ * * *\ \ Lower\ heating\ value\ MJ/kg\ \ Volumetric\ energy\ density\ MJ/l\ \ GHG\ emission\ (operational/\ TTW) g CO2e\ /MJ\ \ Biofuel Blends Emission factors: North America\ \ GHG\ emission\ (total/WTW)\ g CO2e/MJAim higher\ \ GHG\ emission\ (energy\ Aim higher provision/\ WTT)\ kg CO2e/kg\ \ GHG\ emission\ (operational/\ TTW)\ kg CO2e/kg\ \ GHG\ emission\ (total/WTW)\ kg CO2e/kg\ \ | 100% Diesel | 42.6 | 0.847 | 36.1 | 15.2 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 99% Diesel, 1% Biodiesel | 42.6 | 0.833 | 35.4 | 22.7 |\ | 98% Diesel, 2% Biodiesel | 42.5 | 0.833 | 35.4 | 22.8 |\ | 95% Diesel, 5% Biodiesel | 42.4 | 0.835 | 35.4 | 23.1 |\ | 93% Diesel, 7% Biodiesel | 42.3 | 0.836 | 35.3 | 23.4 |\ | 90% Diesel, 10% Biodiesel | 42.1 | 0.838 | 35.3 | 23.7 |\ | 80% Diesel, 20% Biodiesel | 41.6 | 0.844 | 35.1 | 24.9 |\ | 50% Diesel, 50% Biodiesel | 40.2 | 0.862 | 34.6 | 28.4 |\ | 100% Biodiesel (soybean) | 37.7 | 0.881 | 33.2 | 30.3 |\ \ | 75.7 | 90.9 | 0.65 | 3.22 | 3.87 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 74.5 | 97.2 | 0.96 | 3.17 | 4.14 |\ | 73.8 | 96.6 | 0.97 | 3.14 | 4.10 |\ | 71.6 | 94.7 | 0.98 | 3.03 | 4.01 |\ | 70.1 | 93.4 | 0.99 | 2.96 | 3.95 |\ | 67.9 | 91.6 | 1.00 | 2.86 | 3.86 |\ | 60.4 | 85.3 | 1.04 | 2.52 | 3.55 |\ | 38.2 | 66.6 | 1.14 | 1.53 | 2.67 |\ | 0.8 | 31.1 | 1.14 | 0.0294 | 1.17 |\ \ Gasoline-Ethanol Blends Emission factors: North America\ \ | 100% Gasoline | 41.7 | 0.749 | 31.2 | 16.6 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 99% Gasoline, 1% Ethanol | 41.6 | 0.743 | 30.9 | 24.2 |\ | 98% Gasoline, 2% Ethanol | 41.4 | 0.744 | 30.8 | 24.5 |\ | 95% Gasoline, 5% Ethanol | 41.0 | 0.745 | 30.5 | 25.2 |\ | 93% Gasoline,7% Ethanol | 40.7 | 0.746 | 30.3 | 25.7 |\ | 90% Gasoline,10% Ethanol | 40.2 | 0.747 | 30.0 | 26.4 |\ | 80% Gasoline,20% Ethanol | 38.8 | 0.750 | 29.1 | 28.8 |\ | 50% Gasoline,50% Ethanol | 34.4 | 0.762 | 26.2 | 36.0 |\ | 100% Ethanol(Corn) | 27.0 | 0.789 | 21.3 | 55.6 |\ \ | 73.0 | 89.6 | 0.69 | 3.04 | 3.74 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 74.2 | 98.5 | 1.01 | 3.08 | 4.09 |\ | 73.5 | 98.0 | 1.01 | 3.04 | 4.06 |\ | 71.2 | 96.4 | 1.03 | 2.92 | 3.95 |\ | 69.7 | 95.4 | 1.04 | 2.84 | 3.88 |\ | 67.5 | 93.9 | 1.06 | 2.71 | 3.78 |\ | 60.0 | 88.8 | 1.12 | 2.33 | 3.44 |\ | 37.6 | 73.5 | 1.24 | 1.29 | 2.52 |\ | 0.3 | 55.9 | 1.50 | 0.0089 | 1.51 |\ \ * * *\ \ Scaling emission factors: GLEC Version 3 to GLEC Version 3.1\ \ We understand that with updated values every year in alignment with the source’s revision of the methodology\ and database, which are used in the GLEC Framework may cause a significant problem for companies that have\ already committed to certain emission reduction trajectories. It may take time for adjustment to these new values,\ as revising an emission baseline and readjusting future targets and trajectories is not a trivial process.\ \ The following approximate scaling factors are therefore provided to help companies that calculate their emission\ using the latest European and North American values put the new values into the context of their previous baseline.\ \ Europe Table\ \ | Fuel | WTT % increase |\ | --- | --- |\ | Diesel | 1% |\ | Gasoline | 0% |\ | LPG | -1% |\ | Jet A | -24% |\ | HFO | 21% |\ | LNG | 4% |\ | CNG | -1% |\ \ | | TTW % increase | WTW % increase |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 2% | 1% |\ | | 0% | 0% |\ | | 0% | 0% |\ | | 1% | -5% |\ | | 3% | 6% |\ | | 2% | 3% |\ | | -1% | -1% |\ \ • a company where aviation emissions dominate might expect to report a 5% decrease in\ WTW emissions across all fuels;\ • a company where road transport emissions dominate might expect to report a 1%\ \ Based on the above:\ • a company where aviation emissions dominate might expect to report a 5% decrease in\ \ WTW emissions across all fuels;\ • a company where road transport emissions dominate might expect to report a 1%\ increase in WTW emissions across all fuels;\ • a company where maritime emissions dominate might expect to report a 6% increase in\ \ North America Table\ \ | Fuel | WTT % increase |\ | --- | --- |\ | Diesel | -6% |\ | Gasoline | 15% |\ | LPG | 69% |\ | Jet A | -7% |\ | HFO | 88% |\ | LNG | 14% |\ | CNG | 5% |\ \ | | TTW % increase | WTW % increase |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 0% | -1% |\ | | 0% | -1% |\ | | 0% | -1% |\ | | 1% | 5% |\ | | 0% | -1% |\ | | 0% | -1% |\ | | 0% | -1% |\ \ • a company where aviation emissions dominate might expect to report a 5% increase in\ WTW emissions across all fuels;\ • a company where road transport emissions dominate might expect to report a 1%\ \ Based on the above:\ • a company where aviation emissions dominate might expect to report a 5% increase in\ \ • a company where road transport emissions dominate might expect to report a 1%\ decrease in WTW emissions across all fuels;\ • a company where maritime emissions dominate might expect to report a 1% decrease in\ \ • a company where maritime emissions dominate might expect to report a 1% decrease in\ WTW emissions across all fuels.\ \ * * *\ \ Module 2\ Default fuel efficiency and\ GHG emission intensity values\ \ As explained in the main body of the GLEC Framework, there\ remains a need for default values as a “fall back” option in\ cases where details of contracted transport services, or access\ to primary data, is limited or unavailable. For some transport\ modes there is a vast choice of reference data and default\ values for emission intensity which can lead to comparability\ issues, whereas for other modes reference data and default\ data might be scarce, resulting in difficulties generating a\ representative output. This module contains a set of default fuel\ efficiency and GHG emission intensity values across almost all\ modes, to support consistent and comparable reporting.\ \ 1. A single, conservative value where the\ user’s knowledge is highly limited, often\ to the mode of transport used with little, if\ any, additional information.\ 2. A basic level of disaggregation where\ a service type is known, but detailed\ information of the vehicle or operational\ characteristics, which could help refine the\ value used, remains unknown.\ 3. A more granular set of values, for use\ where some knowledge about the vehicle\ type, vehicle size and fuel exists.\ \ * * *\ \ Technically it would be possible to provide a\ very detailed set of default values that takes\ into consideration a wide variation in load\ factors, cargo types, fuel mixes, regional\ variations etc. However, we believe that\ producing such a list would be misleading,\ because it would imply a level of precision\ that is inappropriate to its likely subsequent\ use, as default values can only provide an\ indication of emissions. The results generated\ by using such values might therefore create\ wrong impressions regarding inefficiencies\ and emissions of your specific organization.\ Furthermore, they could discourage\ organizations from progressing toward the use\ of higher quality data in the form of detailed\ modeling, or, preferably, good quality primary\ data, which is better suited to decision-making\ in support of emission reduction.\ To put this another way, we hope that, in time,\ \ To put this another way, we hope that, in time,\ the default values provided here will no longer\ be needed because, increasingly, organizations\ will have enough information to use high-quality\ emissions modeling or verified primary data\ sources to support precise reporting and\ better-informed emission reduction decisions.\ The GLEC default factors have been produced\ with certain constraints in mind, particularly:\ \ • Among the many sets of default values that\ have been published over the years there\ are some that carry legal weight. For\ example, the Base Carbone data in France\ and the “Guideline for Shipper Energy\ Conservation Action” in Japan contain energy\ intensity values that are embedded within\ national emission reporting legislation, and\ as such are required to be used for estimation\ of emissions from domestic transportation by\ companies based in those countries.\ \ • Justification as to data sources, operational\ assumptions and choices made has been\ provided to a level considered appropriate\ for an industry-led initiative. The GLEC default\ factors are not a peer-reviewed, scientific\ publication but rather our best attempt to\ provide reliable estimates as a first step on\ a company’s journey to inclusive, high-quality\ GHG emission reporting. That said, this\ module will continue to be updated when\ new datasets become available for inclusion,\ as harmonization or standards are adopted,\ and as understanding improves over time.\ \ • The values are generally quoted to a limited\ number of significant figures in order to\ emphasize that they only provide estimates of\ Scope 3 GHG emissions. As stated in\ the main body of the Framework, Scope 1\ emissions, or attempts to calculate accurate\ Scope 3 emission values, should be based\ on a more sophisticated approach, for\ example, using verified primary data and/or\ a certified calculation tool.\ \ • Unless specified otherwise, values are\ globally applicable.\ \ Taking this approach also allows a comparison\ of representative values across and within\ modes at a general level. The following graph\ shows a high-level comparison of the possible\ range of emission intensities associated with\ each mode.\ \ The values are drawn from the broader\ database that informs the values presented\ for each mode on the subsequent pages and\ \ * * *\ \ Air transport\ \ Many factors influence the emissions from air transportation,\ not least the aircraft type and detailed routing which may not be\ immediately apparent. The following default emission intensity\ values have been produced for air freight transport to provide\ LSPs and shippers with indicative values for their reporting of\ Scope 3 emissions where primary data is not available from the\ airline, or there is insufficient information (e.g., specific aircraft\ type or load factor are unknown) to allow detailed modeling of\ the emissions.\ \ Since publication of the GLEC Framework\ v2 in 2019, the International Air Transport\ Association (IATA) has updated its methodology\ guidance for partitioning of emissions between\ passengers and belly cargo so that there is\ currently consistency between IATA RP 1678,\ ISO 14083 and the European Union Emissions\ Trading System (EU ETS). Although there is still\ some debate as to whether this may be further\ updated, it is the approach represented in\ these GLEC emission intensities.\ Emissions are quoted on a WTW, CO2e basis,\ using the fuel emission factor for jet fuel quoted\ in Module 1 of the Framework.\ \ Values of aircraft fuel consumption, both\ freight and passenger aircraft, were calculated\ for routes indicative of both short- and longhaul air transport, following the definitions\ used by Science-Based Targets initiative\ (SBTi) and in ISO 14083, using information\ provided in the International Civil Aviation\ Organisation (ICAO) Carbon Emissions\ Calculator Methodology Version 11.12\ Additionally, a set of values is provided for\ companies that are unable to determine\ whether their air freight has been transported\ as belly freight or on a freighter. This has been\ calculated as a weighted average of the belly\ \ freight and freighter values in the ratio 55%\ belly freight, 45% freighter.\ \ We understand that this is a simplification,\ because overall fuel, and hence emission\ intensity, varies steadily with distance for any\ \ We understand that this is a simplification,\ because overall fuel, and hence emission\ intensity, varies steadily with distance for any\ \ intensity, varies steadily with distance for any\ particular aircraft and loading condition. We also\ recognize that there is not a single definition of\ \ The fuel consumption has been converted\ into an emission intensity value for each\ aircraft type and route combination using the\ latest IATA average values for passenger and\ freight load factors. For the purpose of this\ default calculation, the currently low average\ Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) content of\ aviation fuel has been excluded to avoid even\ the marginal risk of double counting where\ an airline is able to report a figure based on\ primary data that reflects known SAF use.\ \ Bearing in mind all these caveats the proposed\ air sector defaults are as follows:\ \ Table 1\ Air transport emission intensity factors\ \ | | | WTT g CO2e/t-km | TTW g CO2e/t-km | WTW g CO2e/t-km |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Freighter | Short-haul(<1500km) | 261 | 1255 | 1516 |\ | Long-haul(>1500km) | 105 | 503 | 608 | |\ | Belly freight | Short-haul(<1500km) | 213 | 1026 | 1239 |\ | Long-haul(>1500km) | 161 | 775 | 936 | |\ | Unknown | Short-haul(<1500km) | 234 | 1129 | 1363 |\ | Long-haul(>1500km) | 135 | 653 | 788 | |\ \ * * *\ \ Inland waterway\ transport\ \ Although the following emission intensities are proposed\ as global values, the data is primarily based on European\ operational information on major waterways and combined\ according to weighted averages for common vessel categories.\ \ The nature of the waterway system has a\ significant impact both on the type and size\ of vessel that can navigate it and the ease\ of transit due to the prevalence of locks,\ underwater clearance and speed of flow.\ Generic information does not reflect the specific\ situation. It is therefore important that you base\ your calculations on good quality primary data.\ Failing that, inland waterway or country-specific\ data should be sought wherever possible.\ \ Table 2\ Inland waterways transport emission intensity values\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Loading Basis Combined Load Factor & Empty Running | Fuel type |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Motor vessels<50m(<650t) | N/A | Diesel |\ | Motor vessels<50-80m(650-1000t) | 55% | Diesel |\ | Motor vessels85-110m(1000-2000t) | 52% | Diesel |\ | Motor vessels135m(2000-3000t) | 50% | Diesel |\ | Coupled convoys(163-185m) | 61% | Diesel |\ | Pushed convoy-push boat+2 barges | 70% | Diesel |\ | Pushed convoy-push boat+4/5 barges | 70% | Diesel |\ | Pushed convoy-push boat+6 barges | 70% | Diesel |\ | Tanker vessels | 65% | Diesel |\ | Container vessels110m | 75% | Diesel |\ | Container vessels135m | 75% | Diesel |\ | Container vessels-Coupled convoys | 68% | Diesel |\ \ | Fuel intensity(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | |\ | 0.0184 | 0.0221 | 17.8 | 59.2 | 77.1 |\ | 0.0081 | 0.0097 | 7.9 | 26.1 | 33.9 |\ | 0.0051 | 0.0062 | 4.9 | 16.4 | 21.4 |\ | 0.0052 | 0.0063 | 5.0 | 16.7 | 21.8 |\ | 0.0047 | 0.0056 | 4.6 | 15.1 | 19.7 |\ | 0.0048 | 0.0057 | 4.7 | 15.5 | 20.1 |\ | 0.0027 | 0.0032 | 2.6 | 8.7 | 11.3 |\ | 0.0020 | 0.0024 | 1.9 | 6.4 | 8.4 |\ | 0.0059 | 0.0070 | 5.7 | 19.0 | 24.7 |\ | 0.0070 | 0.0084 | 6.8 | 22.5 | 29.3 |\ | 0.0054 | 0.0065 | 5.2 | 17.4 | 22.6 |\ | 0.0054 | 0.0065 | 5.2 | 17.4 | 22.6 |\ \ Pushed convoy data applicable to US operations.\ \ * * *\ \ Logistics hubs\ \ The development of default emission intensities for logistics hubs\ is still at a relatively early stage. To overcome the data gap on\ operational GHG emissions of logistics hubs, the international\ partners of the GILA project – Fraunhofer IML, Politecnico di\ Milano, GreenRouter and Universidad de los Andes – organized\ market studies to update their initial data base on GHG emission\ 14\ intensity values of logistics hubs.\ \ As an additional categorization, the site\ conditions have been classified as ambient,\ \ 2. Hubs where both transshipment and\ warehousing are relevant services;\ 3. Hubs where warehousing is the main service\ (>80% of goods handled);\ 4. Liquid bulk terminals;\ 5. Maritime container terminals.\ \ The underlying data, i.e., annual information on\ energy consumption, refill of refrigerants and\ throughput, collected by each institution were\ processed, anonymized and finally merged into\ one database from which the final emission\ intensities per hub were calculated. This\ database differentiates five hub types, as follows: each sample which was considered more\ \ 1. Hubs where transshipment is the main service\ (>80% of goods handled);\ 2. Hubs where both transshipment and\ \ temperature-controlled or mixed sites. Table\ 3 summarizes current average emission\ intensity values of the defined hub types. The\ corresponding sample size per hub type is\ outlined in brackets. While data on terminals\ originate from various regions worldwide, the\ main focus for warehouses and transshipment\ sites is Europe. Further background information\ on the calculations can be found on the REff\ ® website via [https://s.fhg.de/reff](https://s.fhg.de/reff).\ Tool\ \ Table 3\ Logistics hubs emission intensity values\ Aim higher\ \ | Hub type unit | Ambient | Sample size | Temperature-controlled | Sample size | Mixed | Sample size |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | TransshipmentkgCO2e/t | 1.3 | (99) | | | 2.5 | (8) |\ | Storage+transshipmentkgCO2e/t | 5.6 | (57) | | | 18.4 | (10) |\ | WarehousekgCO2e/t | 45.5 | (67) | | | ≥50.0 | estimate by Fraunhofer IML |\ | Liquid bulk terminalskgCO2e/t | 3.3 | (23) | | | 7.2 | (23) |\ | Maritime containerterminalskgCO2e/container | 10.7 | (15) | 12.6 | (15) | | |\ \ The sample size that these values are based on\ is still relatively small; the values will continue\ to be updated over time assuming that more\ and better data becomes available and is\ shared with Fraunhofer IML. We expect this to\ improve accuracy and to broaden the range of\ defaults offered, e.g., additional definitions and\ size categorization of logistics hubs or values\ storage and transshipment sites and 250 tonnes for specific regions where ambient climate\ conditions can have a strong influence on the\ amount of heating or cooling required. As is the\ case for all default values, the data in Table 3\ should be used as a last resort when primary\ data is not available, or as a starting point that\ \ Fraunhofer IML is working in partnership with\ SFC and other organizations to attempt to build\ a broader GILA database of hub emissions, from\ which better knowledge of emission reduction\ opportunities and a wider range of default values\ will become available, e.g., in terms of regional\ differences. This is achieved through application\ ®, which is provided online via\ of the REff Tool\ [https://s.fhg.de/reff](https://s.fhg.de/reff). To participate in this work,\ please contact either [contact-reff@iml.fraunhofer](mailto:contact-reff@iml.fraunhofer).\ de or SFC to discuss how to provide logistics\ hubs activity data to help grow this knowledge\ base. 95\ \ * * *\ \ Rail transport\ \ Region: Europe\ \ EU average (where traction energy type\ unknown\*): 18.5 g CO2e/t-km (WTW)\ \ EU average (diesel traction): 31 g CO2e/t-km\ (WTW)\ \ For North America, Tier 1 railroads are required\ to report information to the Surface\ Transportation Board in a specified format.\ Information is collected, aggregated and\ published through the American Association of\ Railroads in the form of revenue ton-mile output\ per gallon of fuel used, following the Eastern\ Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC)\ methodology. Conversion to the common units\ used in the GLEC Framework, and conversion\ using the latest GREET fuel emission factors,\ gives the following average WTW emission\ intensity value.\ \ - UIC Railway Handbook 2017: 62% of EU rail tracks are electrified. This\ does not necessarily refer to relative flows but is used as a proxy for the\ default value.16\ \ Region: North America\ \ US average (diesel):\ 16.1 g CO2e/t-km.\ (WTT = 2.7 and TTW =\ 13.4 g CO2e/t-km respectively)\ \ European diesel traction\ \ Many North American railroad companies\ have their own calculators which calculate\ according to the ERTAC approach and can\ e/t-km (at be accessed online.\ \ Truck + trailer and trailer only on train provide\ derived average values, including allowance\ for return trips where there is zero return load.\ Based on 34–40 t articulated truck/truck trailer\ combination, including average truck loading\ and empty running characteristics. Tonnekilometer in these circumstances refers to the\ net load within the truck.\ \ Load factors, empty running and train\ characteristics are sourced from EcoTransIT\ World Methodology and Data Update, 2024.18\ \ Table 4\ European rail diesel traction emission intensity values\ \ | Load characteristics | Basis | |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load factor | Empty running | |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 33% |\ | Container | 50% | 17% |\ | Cars | 85% | 33% |\ | Chemicals | 100% | 50% |\ | Coal&Steel | 100% | 50% |\ | Building Materials | 100% | 50% |\ | Manufactured Products | 75% | 38% |\ | Cereals | 100% | 38% |\ | Truck+trailer on train | 85% | 33% |\ | Trailer only on train | 85% | 33% |\ \ | Fuel intensity | | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | (kg/t-km) | (l/t-km) | WTT | TTW | WTW |\ | 0.0073 | 0.0088 | 7.1 | 23.6 | 30.7 |\ | 0.0068 | 0.0082 | 6.6 | 21.9 | 28.5 |\ | 0.0158 | 0.0189 | 15.3 | 50.7 | 66.0 |\ | 0.0063 | 0.0076 | 6.1 | 20.3 | 26.4 |\ | 0.0049 | 0.0059 | 4.7 | 15.7 | 20.4 |\ | 0.0061 | 0.0073 | 5.9 | 19.7 | 25.6 |\ | 0.0064 | 0.0077 | 6.2 | 20.7 | 26.9 |\ | 0.0048 | 0.0058 | 4.7 | 15.5 | 20.2 |\ | 0.015 | 0.018 | 13.9 | 49.0 | 62.9 |\ | 0.010 | 0.011 | 8.7 | 30.8 | 39.4 |\ \ * * *\ \ The EcoTransIT 2024 Methodology Update\ provides additional information about typical\ train, wagon and operating characteristics for\ different commodity types that can be used to\ provide a more disaggregated default factors.\ \ Load factors, empty running and train\ characteristics sourced from EcoTransIT World\ Methodology and Data Update, 2024\ Truck + trailer and trailer only on train provide\ derived average values, including allowance\ for return trips where there is zero return load.\ Based on 34–40 t articulated truck/truck trailer\ combination, including average truck loading\ and empty running characteristics. Tonnekilometer in these circumstances refers to the\ net load within the truck.\ \ European Electric Traction\ \ Average energy consumption of EU Electric\ train sourced from EcoTransIT World:\ Environmental Methodology and Data\ Update 2024.18\ \ Table 5\ European rail electric traction emission intensity values\ \ Temperature Controlled Rail Freight\ \ Apply a 12% uplift. Based on the\ recommendation to apply the temperature\ controlled Road Freight uplift for Europe, South\ America, Asia and Africa in the asbence of rail\ specific values.\ \ | Load characteristics | Basis | | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km)@ average 2024 EU electricity generating mix | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load factor | Empty running | Distribution losses | Generation and other Upstream Emissions | Total emissions | |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 33% | 0.4 | 11.0 | 11.5 |\ | Container | 50% | 17% | 0.4 | 10.3 | 10.7 |\ | Cars | 85% | 33% | 0.9 | 23.8 | 24.7 |\ | Chemicals | 100% | 50% | 0.4 | 9.5 | 9.9 |\ | Coal&Steel | 100% | 50% | 0.3 | 7.4 | 7.6 |\ | Building Materials | 100% | 50% | 0.4 | 9.2 | 9.6 |\ | Manufactured Products | 75% | 38% | 0.4 | 9.7 | 10.1 |\ | Cereals | 100% | 38% | 0.3 | 7.3 | 7.6 |\ | Truck+trailer on train | 85% | 33% | 0.9 | 14.6 | 15.5 |\ | Trailer only on train | 85% | 33% | 0.6 | 9.2 | 9.7 |\ \ * * *\ \ Road transport\ \ This section sets out the current GLEC default values for road\ transport. The main datasets presented are for North America\ and Europe. These datasets are presented separately because\ the data in the primary inputs are arranged in a different way.\ \ The primary inputs used are:\ \ 1. SmartWay truck data 2023 for North America19\ 2. Handbook of Emission Factors (HBEFA) database values20\ processed internally by SFC to approximate the current (2024)\ typical operational parameters of each truck type and size\ 3. UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting21\ 4. Base Carbone, as used in application of article L. 1431-313\ of the French Transport code (September 2018)\ 5. Network for Transport Measures (NTM)22\ \ Road Freight emission intensity values include a + 5% distance conversion to correct for\ the difference between actual and shortest feasible distance\ \ Table 6\ North American road emission intensity values\ \ | SmartWay category\* | Fuel intensity factor(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity factor(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | Van(<3.5t) | 0.22 | 0.26 | 153 | 756 | 909 |\ | General | 0.027 | 0.031 | 18 | 91 | 110 |\ | Auto Carrier | 0.028 | 0.033 | 19 | 96 | 115 |\ | Dray | 0.024 | 0.028 | 17 | 82 | 98 |\ | Expedited | 0.177 | 0.209 | 123 | 607 | 730 |\ | Flatbed | 0.020 | 0.024 | 14 | 70 | 84 |\ | Heavy Bulk | 0.023 | 0.027 | 16 | 77 | 93 |\ | LTL/Dry Van | 0.056 | 0.067 | 39 | 194 | 233 |\ | Mixed | 0.027 | 0.031 | 18 | 91 | 110 |\ | Moving | 0.097 | 0.114 | 67 | 332 | 399 |\ | Package | 0.237 | 0.280 | 164 | 815 | 979 |\ | Refrigerated | 0.023 | 0.027 | 16 | 80 | 96 |\ | Specialized | 0.032 | 0.038 | 22 | 111 | 133 |\ | Tanker | 0.017 | 0.020 | 12 | 58 | 70 |\ | TL/Dry Van | 0.023 | 0.027 | 16 | 79 | 95 |\ \ dray, expedited or package;\ 3\. Equipment type, relating to the type of cargo carried: dry truck (or\ van), temperature-controlled truck (or van), flatbed, chassis (container),\ heavy/bulk, auto carrier, moving and specialized (e.g., hopper,\ \ the for-hire fleets; hence, for simplicity, no differentiation is made.\ 2\. Operational type: Full Truckload (FTL), Less than Truckload (LTL),\ dray, expedited or package;\ 3\. Equipment type, relating to the type of cargo carried: dry truck (or\ \ Data is sourced from US EPA SmartWay, except that for van, which is\ sourced from NTM. Fleets are characterized by:\ \ 1. Business type: for-hire and private fleets. There are relatively few\ \ 2. Business type: for-hire and private fleets. There are relatively few\ private fleets compared to for-hire fleets; generally, the private fleets\ are well used and so not detrimental to the overall value if included with\ the for-hire fleets; hence, for simplicity, no differentiation is made.\ \ 3. Operational type: Full Truckload (FTL), Less than Truckload (LTL),\ \ 4. Current year averages for empty running and load factor\ based on primary data inputted by carriers into the SmartWay\ tool, and hence implicitly included in the calculations, are not\ publicly available.\ \ \ Most temperature-controlled fleets are FTL with relatively\ fewer LTL so this category is also combined.\ \ * * *\ \ For users who have little knowledge other than\ a basic vehicle type, the starting points for\ vehicles without temperature control would be:\ • Van (<3.5 t Gross vehicle weight (GVW)):\ \ Region: Europe\ and South America\ \ • Van (<3.5 t Gross vehicle weight (GVW)):\ 840 g CO2e/t-km (WTW)\ • Urban truck (3.5-7.5 t GVW): 335 g\ \ • Urban truck (3.5-7.5 t GVW): 335 g\ CO2e/t-km (WTW)\ • MGV (7.5-20 t GVW): 210 g CO2e/t-km (WTW)\ \ • MGV (7.5-20 t GVW): 210 g CO2e/t-km (WTW)\ • HGV: (>20 t GVW): 125 g CO2e/t-km (WTW)\ \ Each of these values is based on a particular\ set of assumptions and chosen from the much\ larger set of possibilities available in the full\ dataset below. As explained in the introduction\ the choice is highly unlikely to be “right” (i.e.,\ highly accurate) for the majority of applications,\ but can be considered suitable as a starting\ point where there is little detailed knowledge.\ Where there is a greater level of knowledge\ about the vehicle and fuel type, the following,\ disaggregated values can be used.\ \ Road Freight emission intensity values include\ a + 5% distance conversion to account for\ emissions related to diversionary and/or out-ofroute distances\ \ Table 7\ Europe and South America road emission intensity values\ \ | Mode | Vehicle characteristics and size | Combined Load Factor & Empty Running | Fuel | Fuel intensity factor(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity factor(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | | | | |\ | Road | Van<3.5t | 36% | Diesel | 0.201 | 0.242 | 195 | 647 | 842 |\ | 24% | Petrol | 0.239 | 0.322 | 244 | 763 | 1007 | | |\ | 36% | CNG | 0.235 | - | 243 | 648 | 892 | | |\ | 36% | LPG | 0.234 | 0.425 | 246 | 713 | 959 | | |\ \ * * *\ \ Table 8\ Europe and South America road emission intensity values\ \ - LNG/bio-LNG consumption # diesel consumption\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Load characteristics | Basis | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load Factor | Empty Runway | | |\ | Rigid truck3.5-7.5tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Rigid truck7.5-12tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Rigid truck12-20tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Rigid truck20-26tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Rigid truck26-32tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | |\ | Artic truck up to34tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | |\ | Artic Truck34-40tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | |\ | Artic Truck 34-40tGVWSI engine | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | |\ | Artic Truck34-40tGVWHPDI | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | |\ \ | Lng | Fuel | Fuel intensity(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | | |\ | | Diesel | 0.080 | 0.096 | 78 | 258 | 335 |\ | CNG | 0.084 | - | 86 | 231 | 317 | |\ | Diesel | 0.053 | 0.064 | 52 | 172 | 223 | |\ | CNG | 0.056 | - | 58 | 154 | 211 | |\ | Diesel | 0.046 | 0.055 | 44 | 147 | 191 | |\ | CNG | 0.048 | - | 49 | 131 | 181 | |\ | Diesel | 0.033 | 0.040 | 32 | 107 | 139 | |\ | CNG | 0.036 | - | 37 | 99 | 136 | |\ | LNG | 0.037 | - | 47 | 105 | 152 | |\ | Diesel | 0.030 | 0.036 | 29 | 96 | 125 | |\ | 0.029 | 0.035 | 29 | 95 | 123 | | |\ | Diesel | 0.030 | 0.036 | 29 | 95 | 124 | |\ | 0.029 | 0.035 | 29 | 95 | 123 | | |\ | Diesel | 0.024 | 0.029 | 23 | 78 | 101 | |\ | 0.024 | 0.029 | 23 | 78 | 101 | | |\ | | LNG | 0.025 | | 31 | 71 | 102 |\ | CNG | 0.025 | | 25 | 73 | 98 | |\ | Bio-LNG | 0.024 | | 35 | 3 | 38 | |\ | LNG | 0.025 | | 31 | 71 | 102 | |\ | CNG | 0.025 | | 25 | 73 | 98 | |\ | Bio-LNG | 0.024 | | 35 | 3 | 38 | |\ | LNG/diesel | 0.020\* | 0.002# | 27 | 64 | 91 | |\ | CNG/diesel | 0.020\* | 0.002# | 23 | 65 | 87 | |\ | Bio-LNG/diesel | 0.020\* | 0.002# | 31 | 9 | 39 | |\ | LNG/diesel | 0.020\* | 0.002# | 27 | 64 | 91 | |\ | CNG/diesel | 0.020\* | 0.002# | 23 | 65 | 87 | |\ | Bio-LNG/diesel | 0.020\* | 0.002# | 31 | 9 | 39 | |\ \ Module 2\ Default fuel efficiency\ and GHG emission\ Intensity values\ \ Continued on next page\ \ * * *\ \ Table 9\ Europe and South America road emission intensity values (continued)\ \ Table 9\ Europe and South America road emission intensity values (continued)\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Load characteristics | Basis | | Fuel | Fuel intensity factor(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity factor(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load Factor | Empty Running | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | | | |\ | Artic truck40tGVW,incl. lightweight trailer | Heavy | 100% | 38% | Diesel | 0.019 | 0.023 | 19 | 62 | 80 |\ | Artic truck40-44tGVW | Light | 30% | 9% | Diesel | 0.034 | 0.041 | 33 | 110 | 143 |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% | Diesel | 0.021 | 0.026 | 21 | 69 | 89 | |\ | Heavy | 100% | 38% | Diesel | 0.018 | 0.022 | 18 | 59 | 77 | |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | Diesel | 0.021 | 0.026 | 21 | 69 | 90 | |\ | Artic truck up to60tGVW | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% | Diesel | 0.017 | 0.020 | 16 | 54 | 70 |\ | Heavy | 100% | 38% | Diesel | 0.014 | 0.017 | 14 | 46 | 60 | |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | Diesel | 0.017 | 0.020 | 16 | 54 | 70 | |\ | Artic truck up to72tGVW | Heavy | 100% | 38% | Diesel | 0.012 | 0.014 | 11 | 36 | 47 |\ | Container | 72% | 30% | 0.014 | 0.016 | 13 | 42 | 54 | | |\ \ Europe and South America road emission intensity values\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Combined Load Factor & Empty Running |\ | --- | --- |\ | Van<3.5t | 31% |\ \ | Fuel | Energy intensity factor(kWh/tkm) |\ | --- | --- |\ | Electricity | 1.2 |\ \ The main source for the European data\ is HBEFA19.The data has been chosen to\ reflect the current average fleet age and\ modified to match the typical operating\ profile for each vehicle. This means it is not\ a direct representation of a single HBEFA\ scenario. Specifically, it is not based on\ the newest vehicle specifications because\ this would misrepresent the fact that there\ is a significant proportion of older vehicles\ operating in the overall fleet. Emissions\ are based on the latest European emission\ factors presented in Module 1.\ \ Bio-LNG based on GHG reduction threshold\ is to be qualified under RED II. Lower 8\ values are possible depending on feedstock,\ production pathway and blending of\ sources and can be used where reputable\ certification is available.\ \ Europe and South America road emission intensity values\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Load characteristics | Basis | | Fuel | Energy intensity factor(kWh/tkm) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load Factor | Empty Running | | | | |\ | Rigid truck 3.5-7.5t GVW | Light | 30% | 9% | Electric | 0.86 |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% | 0.44 | | |\ | Rigid truck 7.5-12t GVW | Light | 30% | 9% | Electric | 0.65 |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% | 0.34 | | |\ | Rigid truck 12-20t GVW | Light | 30% | 9% | Electric | 0.40 |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% | 0.22 | | |\ | Rigid truck 26-40t GVW | Light | 30% | 9% | Electric | 0.28 |\ | Average/mixed | 60% | 17% | 0.16 | | |\ \ * * *\ \ The below set of China Road emission\ intensity default values was first published\ in the China Default GHG Emission Values\ V1.0 report(2024)30. With the GLEC FW\ v3.1 update, we applied + 5% distance\ conversion to correct for the difference\ between actual and shortest feasible\ distance.\ \ The main source of the fuel efficiency and\ transport activity and performance data\ (e.g., distance, load factor, empty running\ rate) is from Xi’an Jiaotong University’s\ report “Preliminary Investigation and\ Research on Freight Industry”31. The\ calculation of road emission intensity factors\ follows mainly the 2006 IPCC Guidance32,\ GHG Protocol, and GLEC Framework, as\ well as China’s national-level and industry\ standards regarding transport GHGs\ accounting and report, e.g., NDRC’s\ “GHGs Accounting Methods and Reporting\ Guidelines for Land Transport Enterprises”33.\ Other sources related to calculations\ including WB/T 1135-2023 (2023.7)\ “Requirements of the GHG emission\ Accounting and Reporting for Logistics\ Service Provider” (物流企业温室⽓体排放核算与报告要求)34, “Guidance for Compiling\ Provincial Greenhouse Gas Emission Lists\ (Trial)” （省级温室⽓体清单编制指南(试⾏))35,\ and IPCC AR61.\ \ Table 12\ China road emission intensity values\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Load characteristics | Basis | | Fuel | Fuel intensity factor(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity factor(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load Factor | Empty Running | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | | | |\ | Rigid TruckLDT 3.5-4.5t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.113 | 0.136 | 109.61 | 360.83 | 470.44 |\ | Rigid TruckMDT 4.5-5.5t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.101 | 0.121 | 97.15 | 319.79 | 416.94 |\ | Rigid TruckMDV 5.5-7.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.097 | 0.117 | 93.37 | 307.37 | 400.74 |\ | Rigid TruckMDV 7.0-8.5t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.075 | 0.091 | 72.33 | 238.08 | 310.41 |\ | Rigid TruckMDV 8.5-10.5t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.063 | 0.076 | 60.88 | 200.39 | 261.27 |\ | Rigid TruckMDV 10.5-12.5t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.056 | 0.068 | 53.99 | 177.72 | 231.7 |\ | Rigid TruckHDV 12.5-16.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.052 | 0.062 | 49.39 | 162.57 | 211.96 |\ | Rigid TruckHDV 16.0-20.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.037 | 0.045 | 35.5 | 116.85 | 152.34 |\ | Rigid TruckHDV 20.0-25.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.026 | 0.031 | 24.85 | 81.81 | 106.67 |\ | Rigid TruckHDV 25.0-31.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.022 | 0.027 | 21.25 | 69.96 | 91.21 |\ | Rigid TruckHDV>31.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.023 | 0.028 | 22.24 | 73.2 | 95.44 |\ | Articulated TruckHDV up to 18.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.038 | 0.046 | 36.7 | 120.81 | 157.51 |\ | Articulated TruckHDV 18.0-27.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.026 | 0.032 | 24.99 | 82.26 | 107.25 |\ | Articulated TruckHDV 27.0-35.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.024 | 0.029 | 22.54 | 74.21 | 96.75 |\ | Articulated TruckHDV 35.0-40.0t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% | Diesel | 0.02 | 0.024 | 18.84 | 62.02 | 80.86 |\ \ Continued on next page\ \ * * *\ \ Table 12\ China road emission intensity values (continued)\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Load characteristics | Basis | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load Factor | Empty Running | | |\ | Articulated Truck HDV 40.0-43.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck HDV 43.0-46.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck HDV 46.0-49.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck HDV above 49.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck LDT 3.5-4.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck MDT 4.5-5.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck MDV 5.5-7.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck MDV 7.0-8.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck MDV 8.5-10.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck MDV 10.5-12.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck HDV 12.5-16.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck HDV 16.0-20.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck HDV 20.0-25.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck HDV 25.0-31.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck HDV above 31.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck 14-24 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck 24-25 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck 25-29 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ \ | Fuel | Fuel intensity factor(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity factor(I/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | Diesel | 0.019 | 0.023 | 18.22 | 59.96 | 78.18 |\ | Diesel | 0.018 | 0.022 | 17.49 | 57.57 | 75.05 |\ | Diesel | 0.018 | 0.022 | 17.34 | 57.09 | 74.43 |\ | Diesel | 0.018 | 0.022 | 17.22 | 56.67 | 73.89 |\ | Diesel | 0.135 | 0.162 | 130.16 | 428.46 | 558.61 |\ | Diesel | 0.1 | 0.121 | 96.73 | 318.43 | 415.16 |\ | Diesel | 0.095 | 0.114 | 91.62 | 301.6 | 393.22 |\ | Diesel | 0.074 | 0.089 | 71.07 | 233.96 | 305.04 |\ | Diesel | 0.064 | 0.077 | 61.12 | 201.19 | 262.31 |\ | Diesel | 0.055 | 0.066 | 52.39 | 172.48 | 224.87 |\ | Diesel | 0.05 | 0.06 | 48.04 | 158.14 | 206.18 |\ | Diesel | 0.037 | 0.045 | 35.6 | 117.21 | 152.81 |\ | Diesel | 0.024 | 0.029 | 23.28 | 76.63 | 99.91 |\ | Diesel | 0.023 | 0.027 | 21.47 | 70.68 | 92.15 |\ | Diesel | 0.02 | 0.024 | 18.62 | 61.3 | 79.92 |\ | LNG | 0.062 | 0.148 | 74.95 | 175.72 | 250.67 |\ | LNG | 0.03 | 0.071 | 35.84 | 84.02 | 119.85 |\ | LNG | 0.025 | 0.059 | 29.84 | 69.95 | 99.79 |\ \ Continued on next page\ \ * * *\ \ Table 12\ China road emission intensity values (continued)\ \ | Vehicle characteristics and size | Load characteristics | Basis | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Load Factor | Empty Running | | |\ | Articulated Truck 29-31 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Articulated Truck 31-60 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck 14-24 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck 24-25 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck 25-29 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck 29-31 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Dump Truck 31-60 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Rigid Truck 14-24 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Rigid Truck 24-25 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Rigid Truck 25-29 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Rigid Truck 29-31 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Rigid Truck 31-60 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Truck LDV up to 4.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Truck MDV 4.5-12.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Truck HDV above 12 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Truck LDV up to 4.5 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Truck MDV 4.5-12.0 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ | Truck HDV above 12 t GVW | Average | 93% | 19.50% |\ \ | Fuel | Fuel intensity factor(kg/t-km) | Fuel intensity factor(l/t-km) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | LNG | 0.021 | 0.049 | 24.66 | 57.83 | 82.49 |\ | LNG | 0.017 | 0.04 | 19.87 | 46.58 | 66.45 |\ | LNG | 0.048 | 0.114 | 57.89 | 135.72 | 193.61 |\ | LNG | 0.024 | 0.056 | 28.63 | 67.12 | 95.75 |\ | LNG | 0.02 | 0.049 | 24.69 | 57.88 | 82.57 |\ | LNG | 0.017 | 0.04 | 20.38 | 47.79 | 68.17 |\ | LNG | 0.014 | 0.032 | 16.4 | 38.44 | 54.83 |\ | LNG | 0.048 | 0.114 | 58.28 | 136.64 | 194.92 |\ | LNG | 0.024 | 0.056 | 28.63 | 67.12 | 95.75 |\ | LNG | 0.02 | 0.048 | 24.14 | 56.59 | 80.73 |\ | LNG | 0.017 | 0.041 | 20.49 | 48.04 | 68.53 |\ | LNG | 0.014 | 0.033 | 16.52 | 38.74 | 55.26 |\ | Electricity | - | - | 135.44 | - | 135.44 |\ | Electricity | - | - | 74.87 | - | 74.87 |\ | Electricity | - | - | 145.25 | - | 145.25 |\ | Hydrogen | 0.03 | - | 328.1 | - | 328.1 |\ | Hydrogen | 0.016 | - | 173.1 | - | 173.1 |\ | Hydrogen | 0.018 | - | 198.86 | - | 198.86 |\ \ Region: Asia (except China)\ and Africa\*\ \ For vans (up to 3.5 t GVW) apply a 13% uplift\ to the regional values for Europe and South\ America.\ \ Temperature controlled Road Freight\*\*\ \ - Based on extrapolation analysis by NTM\ of data from [https://www.theicct.org/](https://www.theicct.org/)\ publications/literature-review-real-world-fuelconsumption-heavy-duty-vehicles- unitedstates-china\ \ \\*\\* Private Communication from TK’Blue,\ validated using USEPA 2019 SmartWay Truck\ Carrier Partner Tool Technical Documentation\ \ * * *\ \ Sea transport\ emission intensities\ \ Data is based on information presented in the Fourth (IMO)\ Greenhouse Gas Study23. The starting point is the median\ fuel consumption for each size category with the addition\ of 10%, which equals the range between lower and upper\ quartile values, to avoid a risk of underestimation. Emissions\ are based on the latest North American emission factors\ presented in Module 1.\ \ Values for Tanker, General cargo and\ Bulk carrier are derived from IMO Fourth\ GHG study.\ \ Ro-Ro: Tonne-kilometer in these\ circumstances refers to the gross load of\ truck and cargo contained, as this is the\ cargo transported by the vessel. These\ emissions will need to be reallocated to the\ cargo in the truck by the cargo owner.\ \ Table 13\ Sea transport emissions intensity values – Non-container vessels\ \ | Vessel Characteristics and size | | Unit |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | |\ | Bulk carrier | 0-9999 | dwt |\ | | 10000-34999 | dwt |\ | | 35000-59999 | dwt |\ | | 60000-99999 | dwt |\ | | 100000-199999 | dwt |\ | | 200000-+ | dwt |\ \ | | Fuel | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | | With 15% DAF |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | WTW | | |\ | | HFO | 4.7 | 26.5 | 31.2 | 35.9 |\ | | VLSFO | 5.6 | 26.5 | 32.1 | 36.9 |\ | | MDO | 4.8 | 25.6 | 30.5 | 35.0 |\ | | HFO | 1.3 | 7.3 | 8.6 | 9.8 |\ | | VLSFO | 1.5 | 7.3 | 8.8 | 10.1 |\ | | MDO | 1.3 | 7.0 | 8.4 | 9.6 |\ | | HFO | 0.9 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 7.2 |\ | | VLSFO | 1.1 | 5.3 | 6.5 | 7.4 |\ | | MDO | 1.0 | 5.2 | 6.1 | 7.0 |\ | | HFO | 0.8 | 4.4 | 5.2 | 5.9 |\ | | VLSFO | 0.9 | 4.4 | 5.3 | 6.1 |\ | | MDO | 0.8 | 4.2 | 5.0 | 5.8 |\ | | HFO | 0.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 |\ | | VLSFO | 0.6 | 3.0 | 3.6 | 4.1 |\ | | MDO | 0.5 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.9 |\ | | HFO | 0.5 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.6 |\ | | VLSFO | 0.6 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.7 |\ | | MDO | 0.5 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.5 |\ \ Continued on next page\ \ dwt = dead weight tonnage\ \ * * *\ \ Table 13\ Sea transport emission intensity values – Non-container vessels (continued)\ \ | Vessel Characteristics and size | | Unit |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | |\ | Chemical tanker | 0-4999 | dwt |\ | 5000-9999 | dwt | |\ | 10000-19999 | dwt | |\ | 20000-39999 | dwt | |\ | 40000-+ | dwt | |\ | General cargo | 0-4999 | dwt |\ | 5000-9999 | dwt | |\ | 10000-19999 | dwt | |\ \ | | Fuel | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | | With 15% DAF |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | WTW | | |\ | | HFO | 9.1 | 51.2 | 60.3 | 69.3 |\ | | VLSFO | 10.9 | 51.2 | 62.1 | 71.4 |\ | | MDO | 9.3 | 49.6 | 58.9 | 67.7 |\ | | HFO | 4.0 | 22.7 | 26.7 | 30.7 |\ | | VLSFO | 4.8 | 22.7 | 27.5 | 31.6 |\ | | MDO | 4.1 | 22.0 | 26.1 | 30.0 |\ | | HFO | 2.8 | 15.4 | 18.2 | 20.9 |\ | | VLSFO | 3.3 | 15.4 | 18.7 | 21.5 |\ | | MDO | 2.8 | 15.0 | 17.8 | 20.4 |\ | | HFO | 1.7 | 9.4 | 11.1 | 12.8 |\ | | VLSFO | 2.0 | 9.4 | 11.4 | 13.2 |\ | | MDO | 1.7 | 9.1 | 10.9 | 12.5 |\ | | HFO | 1.3 | 7.2 | 8.5 | 9.8 |\ | | VLSFO | 1.5 | 7.2 | 8.8 | 10.1 |\ | | MDO | 1.3 | 7.0 | 8.3 | 9.6 |\ | | HFO | 4.0 | 22.4 | 26.4 | 30.4 |\ | | VLSFO | 4.8 | 22.4 | 27.2 | 31.3 |\ | | MDO | 4.1 | 21.7 | 25.8 | 29.7 |\ | | HFO | 3.2 | 18.1 | 21.3 | 24.5 |\ | | VLSFO | 3.9 | 18.1 | 21.9 | 25.2 |\ | | MDO | 3.3 | 17.5 | 20.8 | 23.9 |\ | | HFO | 2.9 | 16.1 | 18.9 | 21.8 |\ | | VLSFO | 3.4 | 16.1 | 19.5 | 22.4 |\ | | MDO | 2.9 | 15.6 | 18.5 | 21.3 |\ \ | Vessel Characteristics and size | | Unit |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | |\ | General cargo(Continued) | 20000-+ | dwt |\ | Liquefied gas tanker | 0-49999 | cbm |\ | 50000-99999 | cbm | |\ | 100000-199999 | cbm | |\ | 200000-+ | cbm | |\ | Oil tanker | 0-4999 | dwt |\ | 5000-9999 | dwt | |\ | 10000-19999 | dwt | |\ \ | | Fuel | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | | With 15% DAF |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | WTW | | |\ | | HFO | 1.5 | 8.3 | 9.8 | 11.3 |\ | | VLSFO | 1.8 | 8.3 | 10.1 | 11.6 |\ | | MDO | 1.5 | 8.1 | 9.6 | 11.0 |\ | | HFO | 7.2 | 40.2 | 47.4 | 54.5 |\ | | VLSFO | 8.6 | 40.2 | 48.8 | 56.1 |\ | | MDO | 7.3 | 39.0 | 46.3 | 53.2 |\ | | HFO | 2.1 | 11.7 | 13.7 | 15.8 |\ | | VLSFO | 2.5 | 11.7 | 14.1 | 16.3 |\ | | MDO | 2.1 | 11.3 | 13.4 | 15.4 |\ | | HFO | 1.6 | 9.2 | 10.8 | 12.5 |\ | | VLSFO | 2.0 | 9.2 | 11.2 | 12.8 |\ | | MDO | 1.7 | 8.9 | 10.6 | 12.2 |\ | | HFO | 1.7 | 9.7 | 11.5 | 13.2 |\ | | VLSFO | 2.1 | 9.7 | 11.8 | 13.6 |\ | | MDO | 1.8 | 9.4 | 11.2 | 12.9 |\ | | HFO | 13.0 | 73.0 | 86.1 | 99.0 |\ | | VLSFO | 15.6 | 73.0 | 88.6 | 101.9 |\ | | MDO | 13.3 | 70.8 | 84.1 | 96.7 |\ | | HFO | 7.2 | 40.1 | 47.2 | 54.3 |\ | | VLSFO | 8.5 | 40.1 | 48.6 | 55.9 |\ | | MDO | 7.3 | 38.8 | 46.1 | 53.1 |\ | | HFO | 5.6 | 31.4 | 37.0 | 42.5 |\ | | VLSFO | 6.7 | 31.4 | 38.1 | 43.8 |\ | | MDO | 5.7 | 30.4 | 36.1 | 41.5 |\ \ dwt = dead weight tonnage\ cbm = cubic metres\ \ Continued on next page\ \ * * *\ \ Table 13\ Sea transport emission intensity values – Non-container vessels (continued)\ \ | Vessel Characteristics and size | | Unit |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | |\ | Oil tanker(Continued) | 20000-59999 | dwt |\ | 60000-79999 | dwt | |\ | 80000-119999 | dwt | |\ | 120000-199999 | dwt | |\ | 200000-+ | dwt | |\ | Other liquids tankers | 0-999 | dwt |\ | 1000-+ | dwt | |\ | Ferry-RoPax | 0-1999 | GT |\ \ | Fuel | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | | With 15% DAF |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | WTW | |\ | HFO | 2.7 | 15.3 | 18.1 | 20.8 |\ | VLSFO | 3.3 | 15.3 | 18.6 | 21.4 |\ | MDO | 2.8 | 14.9 | 17.7 | 20.3 |\ | HFO | 1.6 | 8.8 | 10.3 | 11.9 |\ | VLSFO | 1.9 | 8.8 | 10.6 | 12.2 |\ | MDO | 1.6 | 8.5 | 10.1 | 11.6 |\ | HFO | 1.2 | 6.9 | 8.1 | 9.3 |\ | VLSFO | 1.5 | 6.9 | 8.4 | 9.6 |\ | MDO | 1.3 | 6.7 | 7.9 | 9.1 |\ | HFO | 0.9 | 5.1 | 6.0 | 6.9 |\ | VLSFO | 1.1 | 5.1 | 6.1 | 7.1 |\ | MDO | 0.9 | 4.9 | 5.8 | 6.7 |\ | HFO | 0.6 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 4.2 |\ | VLSFO | 0.7 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 4.3 |\ | MDO | 0.6 | 3.0 | 3.6 | 4.1 |\ | HFO | 185.4 | 1038.3 | 1223.6 | 1407.2 |\ | VLSFO | 221.4 | 1038.3 | 1259.7 | 1448.7 |\ | MDO | 189.3 | 1006.0 | 1195.3 | 1374.6 |\ | HFO | 5.0 | 27.8 | 32.8 | 37.7 |\ | VLSFO | 5.9 | 27.8 | 33.8 | 38.8 |\ | MDO | 5.1 | 27.0 | 32.0 | 36.9 |\ | HFO | 80.9 | 453.0 | 533.8 | 613.9 |\ | VLSFO | 96.6 | 453.0 | 549.6 | 632.0 |\ | MDO | 82.6 | 438.9 | 521.5 | 599.7 |\ \ dwt = dead weight tonnage\ GT = gross tonnes\ \ | Vessel Characteristics and size | | Unit |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | |\ | Ferry-RoPax(Continued) | 2000-4999 | GT |\ | 5000-9999 | GT | |\ | 10000-19999 | GT | |\ | 20000-+ | GT | |\ | Refrigerated bulk | 0-1999 | dwt |\ | 2000-5999 | dwt | |\ | 6000-9999 | dwt | |\ | 10000-+ | dwt | |\ \ | Fuel | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | | With 15% DAF |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | WTW | |\ | HFO | 39.1 | 218.8 | 257.9 | 296.6 |\ | VLSFO | 46.7 | 218.8 | 265.5 | 305.3 |\ | MDO | 39.9 | 212.0 | 251.9 | 289.7 |\ | HFO | 30.3 | 169.5 | 199.7 | 229.7 |\ | VLSFO | 36.1 | 169.5 | 205.6 | 236.5 |\ | MDO | 30.9 | 164.2 | 195.1 | 224.4 |\ | HFO | 19.3 | 108.3 | 127.7 | 146.8 |\ | VLSFO | 23.1 | 108.3 | 131.5 | 151.2 |\ | MDO | 19.8 | 105.0 | 124.7 | 143.4 |\ | HFO | 14.6 | 81.8 | 96.4 | 110.9 |\ | VLSFO | 17.5 | 81.8 | 99.3 | 114.2 |\ | MDO | 14.9 | 79.3 | 94.2 | 108.3 |\ | HFO | 24.0 | 134.4 | 158.4 | 182.2 |\ | VLSFO | 28.7 | 134.4 | 163.1 | 187.6 |\ | MDO | 24.5 | 130.2 | 154.8 | 178.0 |\ | HFO | 11.6 | 65.1 | 76.8 | 88.3 |\ | VLSFO | 13.9 | 65.1 | 79.0 | 90.9 |\ | MDO | 11.9 | 63.1 | 75.0 | 86.2 |\ | HFO | 8.7 | 48.8 | 57.5 | 66.1 |\ | VLSFO | 10.4 | 48.8 | 59.2 | 68.0 |\ | MDO | 8.9 | 47.3 | 56.1 | 64.6 |\ | HFO | 6.4 | 35.9 | 42.3 | 48.7 |\ | VLSFO | 7.7 | 35.9 | 43.6 | 50.1 |\ | MDO | 6.5 | 34.8 | 41.3 | 47.5 |\ \ * * *\ \ Table 13\ Sea transport emission intensity values – Non-container vessels (continued)\ \ | Vessel Characteristics and size | | Unit |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | |\ | Ro-Ro | 0-4999 | dwt |\ | 5000-9999 | dwt | |\ | 10000-14999 | dwt | |\ | 15000+ | dwt | |\ | Vehicle | 0-29999 | GT |\ | 30000-49999 | GT | |\ | 50000+ | GT | |\ \ | | Fuel | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | | With 15% DAF |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | WTW | | |\ | | HFO | 30.7 | 172.2 | 202.9 | 233.4 |\ | | VLSFO | 36.7 | 172.2 | 208.9 | 240.2 |\ | | MDO | 31.4 | 166.8 | 198.2 | 228.0 |\ | | HFO | 6.7 | 37.7 | 44.4 | 51.0 |\ | | VLSFO | 8.0 | 37.7 | 45.7 | 52.6 |\ | | MDO | 6.9 | 36.5 | 43.4 | 49.9 |\ | | HFO | 5.6 | 31.3 | 36.9 | 42.5 |\ | | VLSFO | 6.7 | 31.3 | 38.0 | 43.7 |\ | | MDO | 5.7 | 30.3 | 36.1 | 41.5 |\ | | HFO | 2.9 | 16.5 | 19.5 | 22.4 |\ | | VLSFO | 3.5 | 16.5 | 20.0 | 23.0 |\ | | MDO | 3.0 | 16.0 | 19.0 | 21.8 |\ | | HFO | 14.9 | 83.7 | 98.7 | 113.5 |\ | | VLSFO | 17.9 | 83.7 | 101.6 | 116.8 |\ | | MDO | 15.3 | 81.1 | 96.4 | 110.8 |\ | | HFO | 7.1 | 39.9 | 47.1 | 54.1 |\ | | VLSFO | 8.5 | 39.9 | 48.5 | 55.7 |\ | | MDO | 7.3 | 38.7 | 46.0 | 52.9 |\ | | HFO | 5.8 | 32.5 | 38.3 | 44.0 |\ | | VLSFO | 6.9 | 32.5 | 39.4 | 45.3 |\ | | MDO | 5.9 | 31.5 | 37.4 | 43.0 |\ \ Container Shipping\ \ dwt = dead weight tonnage\ GT = gross tonnes\ \ All the end user values for containerized\ shipping are calculated according to the stages\ presented in the CCWG methodology.24 The\ values are on a WTW CO2e basis, based on\ a 70% industry average load factor and the\ end user factors include a + 15% distance\ conversion to correct for the difference\ between actual and shortest feasible distance.\ \ Figure 1\ Common trade lanes for sea transport18\ \ Source: EcoTransIT\ \ * * *\ \ Table 14\ Sea transport emission intensity values – Container Vessels\ \ | Trade lane | | Aggregate average trade lane emission intensity | | End user emission intensity | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | g CO2e/TEU-km | WTT g CO2e/TEU-km | TTW g CO2e/TEU-km | WTW g CO2e/TEU-km | | | |\ | Industry Average (to be used in cases where the origin-destination pair is unknown) | Dry | 63.7 | 11.0 | 61.7 | 72.7 | |\ | Reefer | 129.7 | 22.4 | 125.6 | 148.0 | | |\ | Aggregated Major Trade Lanes | | | | | | |\ | Panama Trade | Dry | 80.4 | 13.9 | 77.9 | 91.8 | |\ | Reefer | 148.8 | 25.7 | 144.1 | 169.8 | | |\ | Trans-Atlantic | Dry | 74.2 | 12.8 | 71.9 | 84.7 | |\ | Reefer | 141.7 | 24.5 | 137.2 | 161.6 | | |\ | Trans-Suez | Dry | 41.0 | 7.1 | 39.7 | 46.8 | |\ | Reefer | 104.7 | 18.1 | 101.3 | 119.4 | | |\ | Trans-Pacific | Dry | 55.7 | 9.6 | 53.9 | 63.5 | |\ | Reefer | 117.6 | 20.3 | 113.8 | 134.1 | | |\ | Other Global | Dry | 77.4 | 13.4 | 74.9 | 88.3 | |\ | Reefer | 143.6 | 24.8 | 139.0 | 163.9 | | |\ | Detailed Trade Lanes | | | | | | |\ | Asia to-from Africa | Dry | 72.3 | 12.5 | 70.0 | 82.5 | |\ | Reefer | 140.6 | 24.3 | 136.1 | 160.4 | | |\ | Asia to-from Mediterranean/Black Sea | Dry | 42.1 | 7.3 | 40.8 | 48.0 | |\ | Reefer | 109.0 | 18.8 | 105.5 | 124.3 | | |\ | Asia to-from Middle East/India | Dry | 64.2 | 11.1 | 62.1 | 73.2 | |\ | Reefer | 127.9 | 22.1 | 123.8 | 145.9 | | |\ | Asia to-from North America EC/Gulf | Dry | 54.1 | 9.3 | 52.4 | 61.7 | |\ | Reefer | 114.0 | 19.7 | 110.4 | 130.1 | | |\ | Asia to-from North America WC | Dry | 56.8 | 9.8 | 55.0 | 64.8 | |\ | Reefer | 120.7 | 20.9 | 116.8 | 137.7 | | |\ \ | Trade lane | | Aggregate average trade lane emission intensity | End user emission intensity | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | g CO2e/TEU-km | WTT g CO2e/TEU-km | TTW g CO2e/TEU-km | WTW g CO2e/TEU-km | | |\ | Asia to-from North Europe | Dry | 38.7 | 6.7 | 37.5 | 44.1 |\ | Reefer | 100.6 | 17.4 | 97.4 | 114.8 | |\ | Asia to-from Oceania | Dry | 85.0 | 14.7 | 82.3 | 97.0 |\ | Reefer | 152.4 | 26.3 | 147.5 | 173.9 | |\ | Asia to-from South America (incl. Central America) | Dry | 61.0 | 10.5 | 59.0 | 69.6 |\ | Reefer | 120.7 | 20.9 | 116.8 | 137.7 | |\ | Europe (North & Med) to-from Africa | Dry | 89.4 | 15.4 | 86.5 | 102.0 |\ | Reefer | 163.9 | 28.3 | 158.7 | 187.0 | |\ | Europe (North & Med) to-from South America (incl. Central America) | Dry | 71.7 | 12.4 | 69.4 | 81.8 |\ | Reefer | 138.3 | 23.9 | 133.9 | 157.8 | |\ | Europe (North & Med) to-from Middle East/India | Dry | 54.6 | 9.4 | 52.9 | 62.3 |\ | Reefer | 121.1 | 20.9 | 117.2 | 138.2 | |\ | Europe (North & Med) to-from Oceania (via Suez / via Panama) | Dry | 78.6 | 13.6 | 76.1 | 89.7 |\ | Reefer | 139.6 | 24.1 | 135.1 | 159.3 | |\ | Mediterranean/Black Sea to from North America EC/Gulf | Dry | 80.4 | 13.9 | 77.8 | 91.7 |\ | Reefer | 152.0 | 26.3 | 147.1 | 173.4 | |\ | Mediterranean/Black Sea to from North America WC | Dry | 56.4 | 9.7 | 54.6 | 64.3 |\ | Reefer | 130.6 | 22.6 | 126.4 | 149.0 | |\ | North America EC/Gulf/WC to-from Africa | Dry | 111.3 | 19.2 | 107.7 | 127.0 |\ | Reefer | 180.1 | 31.1 | 174.3 | 205.5 | |\ | North America EC/Gulf/WC to-from Oceania | Dry | 74.1 | 12.8 | 71.7 | 84.5 |\ | Reefer | 133.1 | 23.0 | 128.8 | 151.8 | |\ | North America EC/Gulf/WC to-from South America (incl. Central America) | Dry | 84.1 | 14.5 | 81.4 | 95.9 |\ | Reefer | 152.6 | 26.4 | 147.7 | 174.1 | |\ \ * * *\ \ Table 15\ Sea transport emission intensity values – Container Vessels\ \ | Trade lane | | End user emission intensity | | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | gCO2e/TEU-km | WTT g CO2e/TEU-km | TTW g CO2e/TEU-km | WTW g CO2e/TEU-km | | |\ | North America EC/Gulf/WC to-fromMiddle East/India | Dry | 72.8 | 12.6 | 70.5 | 83.1 |\ | Reefer | 135.0 | 23.3 | 130.7 | 154.0 | |\ | North Europe to-fromNorth America EC/Gulf | Dry | 78.0 | 13.5 | 75.5 | 89.0 |\ | Reefer | 143.6 | 24.8 | 139.0 | 163.8 | |\ | North Europe to-fromNorth America WC | Dry | - | - | - | - |\ | Reefer | - | - | - | - | |\ | South America(incl.Central America)to-fromAfrica | Dry | 101.0 | 17.5 | 97.8 | 115.2 |\ | Reefer | 174.9 | 30.2 | 169.3 | 199.5 | |\ | Intra Africa | Dry | 115.1 | 19.9 | 111.4 | 131.3 |\ | Reefer | 214.0 | 37.0 | 207.2 | 244.1 | |\ | Intra North AmericaEC/Gulf/WC | Dry | 214.5 | 37.1 | 207.6 | 244.7 |\ | Reefer | 294.5 | 50.9 | 285.1 | 336.0 | |\ | Intra South America | Dry | 100.1 | 17.3 | 96.9 | 114.2 |\ | Reefer | 176.3 | 30.5 | 170.7 | 201.1 | |\ | SE Asia to-fromNE Asia | Dry | 90.1 | 15.6 | 87.2 | 102.8 |\ | Reefer | 157.8 | 27.3 | 152.8 | 180.0 | |\ \ | Trade lane | | End user emission intensity | | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | gCO2e/TEU-km | WTT g CO2e/TEU-km | TTW g CO2e/TEU-km | WTW g CO2e/TEU-km | | |\ | Intra NE Asia | Dry | 100.7 | 17.4 | 97.5 | 114.9 |\ | Reefer | 177.1 | 30.6 | 171.4 | 202.0 | |\ | Intra SE Asia | Dry | 116.1 | 20.1 | 112.4 | 132.4 |\ | Reefer | 195.2 | 33.7 | 189.0 | 222.7 | |\ | North Europe to-from Mediterranean/Black Sea | Dry | 64.4 | 11.1 | 62.3 | 73.5 |\ | Reefer | 131.0 | 22.6 | 126.8 | 149.4 | |\ | Intra Mediterranean/Black Sea | Dry | 137.5 | 23.8 | 133.1 | 156.9 |\ | Reefer | 240.2 | 41.5 | 232.5 | 274.0 | |\ | Intra North Europe | Dry | 141.3 | 24.4 | 136.8 | 161.2 |\ | Reefer | 234.9 | 40.6 | 227.4 | 268.0 | |\ | Intra Middle East/India | Dry | 106.3 | 18.4 | 102.9 | 121.3 |\ | Reefer | 187.2 | 32.3 | 181.2 | 213.6 | |\ | Other | Dry | 84.9 | 14.7 | 82.2 | 96.9 |\ | Reefer | 162.9 | 28.2 | 157.7 | 185.8 | |\ \ * * *\ \ 3\ \ Module 3\ Refrigerant emission\ factors\ \ Emission factors for refrigerants need to take into\ consideration the different chemical formulas of the refrigerant\ used. Module 3 gives an overview on refrigerant emission\ factors taking these different formulas into consideration.\ \ Table 1\ Emission factors for refrigerant losses of mobile\ air conditioning and temperature-controlled freight units\ \ | | Mobile air conditioning units in commercial trucks |\ | --- | --- |\ | Refrigerant charge capacity | 1.5kg |\ | Annual leakage rate | 15% |\ | Annual leakage product | 1.5kg\*15%=0.225kg |\ \ | Temperature-controlled mobile freight units(e.g., trailer with a transportation refrigerant unit) |\ | --- |\ | 5.5kg |\ | 32.5% |\ | 5.5kg\*32.5%=1.7875kg |\ \ * * *\ \ Table 2\ 15\ Refrigerant emission factors\ \ | Type | Chemical formula | Alternative name | GWP100, AR6\[g CO2e/g\] |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | R-12 | CF2Cl2//CCl2F2 | Dichlorodifluoromethane | 12,500.0 |\ | R-22 | CHCIF2 | Chlorodifluoromethane | 1,960.0 |\ | R-23 | CHF3 | Fluoroform | 14,600.0 |\ | R-32 | CH2F2 | Difluoromethane | 771.0 |\ | R-115 | CCIF2CF3 | Chloropentafluoroethane | 9,600.0 |\ | R-124 | C2HF4CI//CHCIFCF3 | 1-Chlor-1,2,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane | 597.0 |\ | R-125 | CHF2CF3 | Pentafluoroethane | 3,740.0 |\ | R-134a | CH2FCF3 | 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane | 1,530.0 |\ | R-142b | C2H3F2Cl | 1-Chlor-1,1-difluoroethane | 2,300.0 |\ | R-143a | CH3CF3 | 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane | 5,810.0 |\ | R-152a | C2H4F2//CH3CHF2 | 1,1-Difluoroethane | 164.0 |\ | R-218 | C3F8 | Octafluoropropane | 9,290.0 |\ | R-290 | C3H8 | Propane | 0.02 |\ | R-401A | Mixture, own calculation: 53% R-22, 13% R-152A, 34% R-124 | | 1,263.1 |\ | R-402A | Mixture, own calculation: 60% R-125, 2% R-290, 38% R-22 | | 2,988.8 |\ | R-404A | Mixture, own calculation: 44% R-125, 4% R-134a, 52% R-143a | | 4,728.0 |\ | R-407A | Mixture, own calculation: 20% R-32, 40% R-125, 40% R-134a | | 2,262.2 |\ | R-407C | Mixture, own calculation: 23% R-32, 25% R-125, 52% R-134a | | 1,907.9 |\ | R-407F | Mixture, own calculation: 30% R-32, 30% R-125, 40% R-134a | | 1,965.3 |\ | R-408A | Mixture, own calculation: 7% R-125, 46% R-143a, 47% R-22 | | 3,855.6 |\ | R-409A | Mixture, own calculation: 60% R-22, 25% R-124, 15% R-142b | | 1,670.3 |\ | R-410A | Mixture, own calculation: 50% R-32, 50% R-125 | | 2,255.5 |\ | R-413A | Mixture, own calculation: 88% R-134a, 9% R-218, 3% R-600a | | 2,182.5 |\ | R-417A | Mixture, own calculation: 46,6% R-125, 50% R-134a, 3,4% R-600 | | 2,507.8 |\ | R-417C | Mixture, own calculation: 19,5% R-125, 78,8% R-134a, 1,7% R-600 | | 1,934.9 |\ \ | Type | Chemical formula | Alternative name | GWP100, AR6\[gCO2e/g\] |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | R-422A | Mixture, own calculation:85,1%R-125,11,5%R-134A,3,4%R-600a | 3,358.7 | |\ | R-422D | Mixture, own calculation:65,1%R-125,31,5%R-134a,3,4%R-600a | 2,916.7 | |\ | R-448a | Mixture, own calculation:26%R-32,26%R-125,20%R-1234yf,21%R-134a,7%R-1234ze(E) | 1,494.4 | |\ | R-449A | Mixture, own calculation:25,7%R-134a,25,3%R-1234yf,24,7%R-125,24,3%R-32 | 1,504.5 | |\ | R-450A | Mixture, own calculation:42%R-134a,58%R-1234ze(E) | 643.4 | |\ | R-452a | Mixture, own calculation:11%R-32,59%R-125,30%R-1234yf | 2,291.6 | |\ | R-502 | Mixture, own calculation:48,8%R-22,51,2%R-115 | 5,871.7 | |\ | R-504 | Mixture, own calculation:48,2%R-32,51,8%R-115 | 5,344.4 | |\ | R-507 | Mixture, own calculation:50%R-125,50%R-143a | 4,775.0 | |\ | R-507A | Mixture, own calculation:50%R-125,50%R-143a | 4,775.0 | |\ | R-509A | Mixture, own calculation:44%R-22,56%R-218 | 6,064.8 | |\ | R-513A | Mixture, own calculation:44%R-134a,56%R-1234yf | 673.5 | |\ | R-600 | C4H10 | n-Butane | 0.01 |\ | R-600a | C4H10 | Isobutane | 0.01 |\ | R-717 | NH3 | Ammonia | - |\ | R-744 | CO2 | Carbon dioxide | 1.0 |\ | R-1234ze(E) | C3H2F4//trans-CF3CH=CHF | (E)-1,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene | 1.4 |\ | R-1234yf | C3H2F4//CF3CF=CH2 | 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene | 0.5 |\ | ISCEON 89 | Mixture, own calculation:86%R-125,9%R-218,5%R-290 | 4,052.5 | |\ | FX 100(R-427A) | Mixture, own calculation:50%R-134a,25%R-125,15%R-32,10%R-143a | 2,396.7 | |\ \ For the assessment of refrigerant losses, ISO 14083 provides default values for refrigerant\ charge capacities and annual leakage rates (Chapters I.3.2 and I.3.3)25\ \ * * *\ \ 3\ \ Module 4\ Examples of emission\ calculations - step-by-step\ \ Module 4\ Examples of\ emission calculations\ \ - step-by-step\ \ Click here to go back to Section 3 contents page\ \ This Module contains examples of transport chains and\ explains – step by step – how to calculate their emissions.\ Using the most prevalent modes of transport and\ combinations of them (multi-modal transport), we guide\ you through the use of the GLEC Framework.\ \ The examples are developed in such a\ way that they best cover the different\ calculation needs of the various actors in\ the supply chain, taking into consideration\ different levels of access to primary data.\ For the examples we use actors of different\ size with different shares of emissions in\ the overall carbon footprint of the transport\ chain, and with different requirements\ towards the granularity of the calculation.\ This ensures that you get scenarios which\ are as realistic as possible.\ \ Furthermore, the examples cover different\ use cases of the calculation: they may be\ part of a (company) carbon footprint or a\ specified project, an impact analysis and/\ or part of a target setting and tracking\ assessment.\ \ As mentioned throughout the GLEC\ Framework, measured (primary) data is\ preferred to default values. For distances\ always use the shortest feasible distance\ (SFD) or Great Circle Distance (GCD)\ wherever possible.\ \ * * *\ \ 1. Calculation of GHG emissions\ from road transport\ \ Road transport chain elements often occur as\ part of transport chains with several transport\ chain elements (TCEs). These TCEs can be\ with other modes of transport where the road\ transport builds the first leg pick-up and last leg\ delivery service; also the road TCE can be part\ of a more or less complex network consisting\ solely of road TCEs.\ \ The application of ISO 14083 follows the\ general calculation steps set out in Section 1 of\ the GLEC Framework. Therefore, TCEs must be\ identified for each consignment separately. As\ the number of consignments can be very high\ in a dense and large road transport network, it\ is recommended to use transport management\ systems (TMS) as the basis for routing\ information: transport flows and their distances\ are stored in TMS, and the events created by\ the scans of shipments at a hub or terminal\ usually indicate the start or end of a TCE. TMS\ therefore provide a good source for transport\ distances at a consignment level. The preferred\ transport distance type to be used in the GLEC\ Framework is the SFD, which can be identified\ per TCE from the TMS or the route planner.\ In exceptions GCD can be used (please see\ Section 1 for further information.)\ \ Transport activity for each consignment is\ calculated by multiplying the consignment’s\ mass by the TCE distance. Next, all transport\ activities of each journey are added up to build\ the transport activity of the related transport\ operation categories (TOC).\ \ Then the GHG emission intensity of the TOC\ can be calculated.\ \ Example:\ If an average of 0.15l “diesel” is consumed per\ \ Example:\ If an average of 0.15l “diesel” is consumed per\ tkm in a TOC, the associated GHG emission\ intensity when using a typical WTW diesel\ emission factor for Europe, which includes 5%\ biodiesel, would be:\ \ 0.15 l x 3.36 kg/l CO e = 0.504 kg CO e\ 2 2\ per tkm\ \ The following calculation examples illustrate\ different angles and use cases, always\ applying the same logic, starting with a basic\ use case with access to all relevant GHG\ activity data (fuel use, refrigerant use etc.),\ progressing up to more complex transport\ operations with less access to primary data.\ \ 0.45 t x 20 km x 0.504 kg CO e per tkm =\ 2\ 4.54 kg CO e2\ \ To calculate the GHG emissions for a specific\ general calculation steps set out in Section 1 of consignment on a TCE associated with the\ the GLEC Framework. Therefore, TCEs must be above TOC, its emission intensity must be\ multiplied by the TCE’s specific consignment\ mass and activity distance. So, if the\ consignment mass is 450kg and the distance\ is recommended to use transport management 20km then, for the above example, the total\ emissions for the consignment on this TCE\ information: transport flows and their distances would be:\ 0.45 t x 20 km x 0.504 kg CO e per tkm =\ \ Figure 1\ Example of a road transport chain\ \ 1.1 Company’s own vehicle fleet emission\ calculations and derived emission intensities\ \ In the following examples, the company has\ the objective of calculating its own footprint.\ The related reporting is intended for use by\ the company itself for gaining insight into its\ carbon footprint as well as by its suppliers and\ customers who want to include the reported\ values in their supply chain emission reporting.\ \ As routes and tours are usually kept in a TMS\ or planning system, their distances in a period\ of time (usually one year) should be known.\ This distance (km) per route or tour (TCE)\ multiplied by the mass of freight gives the\ transport activity (tkm) of the TCE.\ \ Given the structure of road transport with its\ high number of consignments, TCEs in road\ transport are the journey segments along\ a specific route, from point of departure to\ destination which an operator consolidates in\ its vehicle fleet operation, including terminal/\ hub handling and transshipments.\ \ Example:\ On the route Hamburg-Munich a total cargo\ mass of 1,200 tonnes is transported during one\ year. The TMS gives an SFD of 658 km. Then\ the total tkm of this route can be calculated as:\ \ In case you do not have access to this data\ from a TMS, the best workaround is to capture\ total distance on each route and the average\ load (tonnes) per vehicle class: e.g., in case the\ 40t trucks in a pool carry 15 tonnes on average\ and these (e.g., 10) trucks are operating in total\ 1,000,000 loaded kilometers per year, their total\ transport activity would be calculated as:\ \ * * *\ \ A TOC is always a group of vehicles and\ associated operations that share the same\ characteristics (e.g., same vehicle size classes\ with same temperature condition). TOCs are\ formed to reflect the transport operations of\ each TCE.\ \ The transport operator needs to take care that\ the choices made in defining the TOCs are\ meaningful and relevant for its own decisions\ and those of its clients. It is recommended to\ check the TOC creation and granularity level\ \ with the most important clients. Furthermore, it\ is recommended to always separate transport\ activity and associated emissions of different\ temperature conditions, as these are different\ services for which different carbon intensities\ need to be calculated and made transparent (to\ clients, for own efficiency controls). Here you\ find an overview of example parameters for TOC\ creation and granularity levels. Flexibility exists\ to merge or subdivide these examples to match\ the granularity to the needs of the calculation.\ \ Table 1\ Examples of TOC granularity in road transport\ \ | TOC examples and granularity levels | Size class | Service type | Hamburg-Frankfurt-Hamburg | All transports in a country | All transports in a region e.g., Europe | All transports in all regions(total operations) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Ambient | <3.5t3.5-7.49t7.5-11.99t...40-50t | Collection and distribution,urban deliveryLinehaul deliveries | May be subdivided into different size or service types or considered as a single service type,with the choice clearly stated | May be subdivided into different size or service types or considered as a single service type,with the choice clearly stated | May be subdivided into different size or service types or considered as a single service type,with the choice clearly stated | Tkm run on all ambient vehicles(5) |\ | Temperature condition I | As above | As above | As above | As above | As above | As above |\ | Temperature condition II | As above | As above | As above | As above | As above | As above |\ \ Based on this table, examples for TOCs in road\ transport include:\ \ • An individual vehicle in a specific network\ • Vehicles of a specific type in a fleet if they\ \ • An individual vehicle in a specific network\ • Vehicles of a specific type in a fleet if they\ share similar or even identical characteristics,\ e.g. temperature controlled, on a specific\ route, outbound and return\ • Vehicles of a specific type in a fleet\ \ Once all energy use is identified, the data\ can be allocated to the TOCs, at the chosen\ level of aggregation and depending on the\ granularity you aim for. In Section 3 Module 1\ all associated emission factors can be found for\ diesel (EU average, US average or composed\ with a respective biofuel blend) and electricity\ emission factors.\ \ Once the calculated transport activity (tkm)\ is matched to the energy use and associated\ emissions per TOC, in the chosen granularity,\ you can calculate the emission intensity and\ emissions of the TOC:\ \ When it comes to the TOC level, transport\ activity (tkm) needs to be calculated separately\ per TOC to ensure that the correct emission\ intensities of each operation category are\ applied: e.g., per vehicle size class, route type,\ ambient vs. temperature controlled, etc. To\ simplify calculations, all similar TOCs (e.g., same\ vehicle size classes with same temperature\ condition) can be clustered and their energy use\ can be summed up. For example:\ \ • All energy use in size class X, driven ambient =\ total liters of fuel\ • All energy use in size class Y, driven ambient =\ \ Emission intensity (CO2e/tkm) = GHG\ emissions per tkm at the level of granularity\ chosen for the TOC.\ \ • All energy use in size class Y, driven with\ temperature condition I = total kWh (BEV)\ • ….\ \ Total emissions (CO2e) = GHG emissions per\ TOC = all energy use per TOC multiplied by the\ appropriate emission factor.\ \ * * *\ \ Example calculations for different energy\ sources used:\ \ • For total emissions in diesel vehicles:\ all liters of fuel multiplied by the WTW emission\ \ • For total emissions in diesel vehicles:\ all liters of fuel multiplied by the WTW emission\ factor in kg CO2e/l (see Module 1 of GLEC\ Framework for example values that follow the\ ISO 14083 methodology) = total WTW emissions\ in kg CO2e\ \ Example:\ 100,000 liters diesel/5% biodiesel blend\ \ 100,000 liters diesel/5% biodiesel blend\ consumed in Europe multiplied by the emission\ factor of 3.36 kg/l (see GLEC Framework\ emission factor in Module 1)\ = 336,000 kg (or 336 tonnes) of CO2e for this\ amount of fuel\ \ • For total emissions in battery electric\ vehicles:\ all kWh of electricity multiplied by the emission\ \ vehicles:\ all kWh of electricity multiplied by the emission\ factor in kg CO2e/kWh applicable for the country\ (location based) or any market-based green\ electricity provision = total WTW emissions in\ kg CO2e\ \ Example:\ 100,000 kWh electricity consumed in Europe\ \ 100,000 kWh electricity consumed in Europe\ multiplied by the factor of 356.4 g/kWh CO2e\ (The EU average value of 99 g/MJ CO2e from\ \ Module 1 is equivalent to 356.4 g/kWh CO2e.)\ = 35,640 kg CO2e.\ \ NOTE: It is important that any different,\ market-based emission factors are\ independently certified.\ • For total emissions in hybrid vehicles:\ \ Example:\ Hybrid energy use is composed of 100,000\ \ Example:\ Hybrid energy use is composed of 100,000\ liters of diesel/5% biodiesel blend and 100,000\ kWh of electricity. Using the above European\ emission factors for diesel and electricity,\ the calculation would be the same as above,\ resulting in 336,000 kg of CO2e from diesel\ consumption + 35,640 kg of CO2e from\ electricity use, giving a total of 371,640 kg CO2e.\ \ • For total emissions in hybrid vehicles:\ Diesel consumption in liters multiplied by the\ respective emission factor + energy use in kWh\ electricity multiplied by the respective emission\ factor = WTW CO2e emissions from diesel +\ WTW CO2e emissions from electricity.\ \ Illustration of electricity pathway from grid meter to vehicle and the various data\ Vehicle telematics data or\ \[Image: Im0\]\ \ 1.2 EV operations emission intensity TOC\ \ Calculations for EV operations should consider\ both electricity emission factor and potential\ losses at specific charging locations as shown\ in figure 1.\ \ In EV Fleet operations, charging is often done\ at various locations, considering regional and\ long-haul scenarios, for example, in long-haul\ operations, carriers are expected to charge at\ their trucks depot overnight, however, additional\ charging to extend driving ranges may occur\ at destinations during loading or unloading or\ en-route at public or highway charging stations,\ potentially in different countries.\ \ TOC of EV operations include:\ • the average grid electricity mixes of countries\ \ Corrected emission factor associated with the\ charging location is multiplication of both the\ net electricity emission factor and the charging\ location correction factor.\ \ • the average grid electricity mixes of countries\ where charging activity takes place,\ • average energy contribution by behind-the-\ \ • average energy contribution by behind-themeter power generation, such as the facility’s\ solar panels, and\ • the on-site electrical and charging\ \ Corrected emission factor = Net emission factor \* Energy correction factor\ ( Energy \* Corrected emission factor )\ TOC Emission Intensity =\ tkm\ = Energy intensity factor \*Charging activity share \* Corrected Emission factor\ \ • the on-site electrical and charging\ infrastructure layout\ \ Considering these factors, we propose two\ additional variables to be included in calculation.\ \ Net electricity emission factor: related to the\ charging location, representing the weighted\ average emission factor for all sources of\ electricity used in the charging station\ \ Charging location energy correction factor:\ this values represents the ratio between the\ amount of electricity in kWh transferred to the\ vehicle and the amount of electricity measured\ at the meter. Considering there is inefficient\ empirical data to provide an industry wide\ \ The annual charging activity share divided by\ locations are presented in the table, including\ the net electricity emission factor and charging\ location energy correction factor.\ \ | Charging location | Grid emission factor(g/kWh at meter) | Net emission factor(g/kWh at meter) | Charging correction factor(kWh at vehicle/kWh at meter) | Corrected emission factor(g/kWh at vehicle) | Charging activity share(%) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Domestic A | 100 | 84 | 1.11 | 93 | 40% |\ | Domestic B | 100 | 100 | 1.11 | 111 | 30% |\ | International C | 250 | 135 | 1.05 | 142 | 10% |\ | International D | 250 | 204 | 1.09 | 222 | 20% |\ \ * * *\ \ 1.3 Refrigerants\ \ Replenishment of any refrigerant losses needs\ to be allocated on top of the energy-based GHG\ emissions for temperature-controlled services.\ Hence the coverage of the calculation is:\ \ All fuel consumption converted to WTW GHG\ emissions (mass of CO2e) + all refrigerant-lossrelated GHG emissions (tonnes or kg). You will\ find the respective emission factors in Module 3.\ If the refrigerant type is unknown, you may apply\ the respective default factor.\ \ Example:\ In the TOC for temperature condition A,\ 6,000,000 tkm have been operated by 10\ trucks with mobile refrigerant units. The\ average volume of the applied refrigerant for air\ conditioning units is, using ISO 14083 default\ factors, 1.5 kg charge capacity, with a default\ loss of 15% = 0.225 kg per unit, and for a\ temperature-controlled mobile freight unit by\ default 5.5 kg charge capacity, with a default\ loss of 32.5% = 1.787 kg per unit.\ \ Where there are different temperature conditions\ that lead to different rates of fuel use (and\ there may also be different refrigerant types),\ the calculations need to be carried out\ separately per temperature condition for\ each transport activity.\ \ Example:\ In the TOC for temperature condition A,\ \ If refrigerant R-134a, with an emission factor\ of 1,430 kg CO2e/kg is used, this would result\ in 321.75 kg CO2e for each air-conditioned\ unit, and a further 2,555.41 kg CO2e for each\ temperature-controlled mobile freight unit.\ \ This results in a refrigerant loss for the\ 10 trucks of\ 2.25 kg + 17.87 kg = 20.12 kg\ \ 10 trucks of\ 2.25 kg + 17.87 kg = 20.12 kg\ \ NOTE: Where different refrigerants are used in\ one transport, different emission factors for the\ leakages must be applied.\ \ To calculate the total emissions of a transport\ chain the emissions for all transport and hub\ related TCEs need to be added together.\ \ 1.4 Inclusion of HOC emissions\ \ In order to integrate HOC emissions, all\ terminal/hub energy consumption which is\ related to the hub operation activities carried\ out to the freight, needs to be identified per\ HOC type: e.g. ambient vs. temperaturecontrolled terminal spaces.\ \ 1.5 Collection and delivery rounds\ \ Example:\ A vehicle leaves the base fully loaded and\ \ The preferred option, assuming a full set of\ information, is to distribute the calculated\ emissions for the delivery round according\ to the transport activity share of the notional\ point-to-point trips that have been replaced by\ the round trip.\ \ Example:\ A vehicle leaves the base fully loaded and\ returns to base empty having dropped off\ loads at 5 intermediate stops.\ \ This example shows that the cumulative\ distance driven of the round trip (in this case, a\ total of 30 km) can easily be much shorter than\ the total return trip distance of the individual\ trips that have been replaced, leading to greater\ efficiency and lower overall emissions.\ \ In cases where individual delivery locations or\ item masses are not tracked, options include\ calculating the emissions for the round trip based\ on fuel consumption and then allocating the\ emissions based on a typical item mass for the\ specific operation in question (if actual mass is\ not known) or calculating the emissions on a\ per-item basis, which may be a more suitable\ approach for the mail sector where deliveries are\ not tracked in an often dense distribution network.\ \ | Start | | |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Point A | Point B Client 1 | Point C Client 2 |\ | Full(12.6t) | | |\ | Delivery(t) | 5 | 2 |\ | Actual distance driven per leg(km) | 5km | 2km |\ | Cumulative distance driven(km) | 5km | 7km |\ | SFD(A to PointX)(km) | 5km | 6km |\ | Notional transport activity for allocation purposes(tkm) | 5x5=25 | 2x6=12 |\ | Share of notional transport activity for allocation purposes | 25/82.6=0.30 | 12/82.6=0.15 |\ \ | | | | Return to base |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Point D Client 3 | Point E Client 4 | Point F Client 5 | Point A |\ | | | | Empty(0t) |\ | 1 | 4 | 0.6 | |\ | 8km | 5km | 4km | 6km |\ | 15km | 20km | 24km | 30km |\ | 10km | 8km | 6km | 35km |\ | 1x10=10 | 4x8=32 | 0.6x6=3.6 | 82.6 |\ | 10/82.6=0.12 | 32/82.6=0.39 | 3.6/82.6=0.04 | |\ \ Example of a road transport routing\ \ Table 2\ Example of a road transport routing\ \ * * *\ \ 1.6 Special case: mail and parcel services\ \ Characteristics of the transport of mail and\ parcel services are that letters and parcels are\ not transported individually. The mail and parcel\ business often takes place on flexible routes and\ with several consolidations on a journey and it\ is not possible to track distances individually\ per letter or parcel. Mail items usually have very\ little mass (0.02–0.1 kg), yet their mass may vary\ from 20 g up to 32 kg and it is difficult to track\ individual consignment mass.\ \ However, it is essential to use an indicator\ that reflects operations in a meaningful and\ pragmatic way. The mail and parcel sector is in\ the process of evaluating suitable categories for\ mail and parcels.\ \ Until a better solution is identified and brought\ into line with ISO 14083, the emissions per item\ are therefore calculated by dividing the total\ emissions of a TCE (GHG activity) by number of\ items, to arrive at a carbon intensity.\ \ Where the parcel mass is known, a more\ specific approach can be taken. The purpose of\ the following example is to show the difference\ in application between the generic or the more\ specific weight-based approach, in particular its\ impact on the first and last mile of the delivery.\ \ Example: (example from GLEC Framework v.2,\ updated to take into account revised emission\ factors)\ \ In the following situation a 250 g package is\ collected from the sender as part of a tracked\ collection round, inserted into a consolidated,\ international mail and parcels network, and\ delivered as part of a general, untracked\ delivery network.\ \ Figure 2\ Example of a mail and parcel\ transport chain\ \ Mail and parcel transport chain\ \ The overall calculation framework for the full\ transport chain from point of collection to delivery\ is presented below. Starting information is prepopulated for TCE 2 to 8, i.e. from logistics site 2,\ where the collections are processed, to logistics\ site 8, where the deliveries are organized.\ \ Table 3\ Example of data sources of a mail and parcel transport chain\ \ | | | | WTW emission intensity | Unit | Data category |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 1 | Tracked collection round | own transport | | | Primary |\ | 2 | Logistics site | own site | 4.1 | kg CO2e/t | Primary |\ | 3 | Road feeder to main terminal | own transport | 0.11 | kg CO2e/t-km | Primary |\ | 4 | Logistics site | own site | 4.6 | kg CO2e/t | Primary |\ | 5 | Air main haul | own plane | 0.563 | kg CO2e/t-km | Primary |\ | 6 | Logistics site | contracted, shared site | 1.3 | kg CO2e/t | Default\* |\ | 7 | Rail feeder to local delivery hub | contracted service | 0.03 | kg CO2e/t-km | Default\*\* |\ | 8 | Logistics site | contracted, shared site | 1.3 | kg CO2e/t | Default\* |\ | 9 | Untracked delivery round | own transport | | | Primary |\ \ | Transport activity distance(km) | Transport activity(tkm) | WTT emissions(kgCO2e) | TTW emissions(kgCO2e) | WTW emissions(kgCO2e) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | - | - | A | A | A |\ | - | - | | | 0.0010 |\ | 120 | 0.030 | 0.0006 | 0.0027 | 0.0033 |\ | - | - | | | 0.0012 |\ | 4800 | 1.200 | 0.1452 | 0.5304 | 0.6756 |\ | - | - | | | 0.0003 |\ | 400 | 0.100 | 0.0007 | 0.0023 | 0.0030 |\ | - | - | | | 0.0003 |\ | - | - | B | B | B |\ \ Data category “primary” implies that the data is sourced from a TMS.\ Data category “default” implies that the data was sourced from GLEC\ Framework default value lists:\ \ - logistics site default, ambient transshipment center\ \ Framework default value lists:\ \ - logistics site default, ambient transshipment center\ \\*\\* European diesel rail default for general cargo\ \ - logistics site default, ambient transshipment center\ \\*\\* European diesel rail default for general cargo\ \ \ * * *\ \ The above information would apply irrespective\ of the approach used for the collection and\ delivery rounds.\ \ TCE1: the tracked collection round\ \ The final task is to calculate the values for TCE\ 1 and 9, figuring as A and B in Table 3. The\ following calculations show how this could be\ done for both situations: tracked, in this case a\ collection round, and untracked, in the above\ example a delivery round.\ \ • total fuel consumption for the collection round\ • SFD between the logistics site and each\ individual collection point\ • mass of each individual item, including\ \ • mass of each individual item, including\ packaging\ • emission factor to convert fuel to GHG\ \ The allocation of emissions is based on the\ percentage share of the direct tonne-kilometers\ for each collected item. So, the 250 g item at\ row 7 gets 0.0024/0.3631 as its share of the total\ emissions (0.7%).\ \ • emission factor to convert fuel to GHG\ emissions\ \ Table 4\ Example of a mail and parcel transport\ chain emission calculation\ \ | 14 collections | Direct distance collection location to hub(km) | Point-to-point distance driven(km) | Item weight(kg) | Total fuel(l) | Direct transport activity(tkm) | Allocation(%) | WTT emissions(kgCO2e) | TTW emissions(kgCO2e) | WTW emissions(kgCO2e) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Hub | | | | | | | | | |\ | 1 | 8 | 7 | 4 | | 0.0280 | 7.7% | 0.204 | 1.010 | 1.213 |\ | 2 | 2 | 7.2 | 1 | | 0.0072 | 2.0% | 0.052 | 0.260 | 0.312 |\ | 3 | 4 | 9 | 0.25 | | 0.0023 | 0.6% | 0.016 | 0.081 | 0.098 |\ | 4 | 0.5 | 8.9 | 2 | | 0.0178 | 4.9% | 0.130 | 0.642 | 0.771 |\ | 5 | 3 | 8.6 | 20 | | 0.1720 | 47.4% | 1.252 | 6.202 | 7.453 |\ | 6 | 1 | 9 | 2 | | 0.0180 | 5.0% | 0.131 | 0.649 | 0.780 |\ | 7 | 2 | 9.5 | 0.25 | | 0.0024 | 0.7% | 0.017 | 0.086 | 0.103 |\ | 8 | 0.5 | 9.5 | 3 | | 0.0285 | 7.8% | 0.207 | 1.028 | 1.235 |\ | 9 | 4 | 7 | 0.1 | | 0.0007 | 0.2% | 0.005 | 0.025 | 0.030 |\ | 10 | 2 | 6 | 7 | | 0.0420 | 11.6% | 0.306 | 1.514 | 1.820 |\ | 11 | 6 | 8 | 2 | | 0.0160 | 4.4% | 0.116 | 0.577 | 0.693 |\ | 12 | 1 | 7.7 | 3 | | 0.0231 | 6.4% | 0.168 | 0.833 | 1.001 |\ | 13 | 2 | 8.3 | 0.2 | | 0.0017 | 0.5% | 0.012 | 0.060 | 0.072 |\ | 14 | 4 | 7 | 0.5 | | 0.0035 | 1.0% | 0.025 | 0.126 | 0.152 |\ | Hub | 4 | 3.5 | | | | | | | |\ | Total | 44 | | | 4.8 | 0.3631 | | 2.643 | 13.091 | 15.734 |\ \ * * *\ \ TCE 9: Untracked delivery round\ \ For the untracked delivery round the data\ requirement is less complex and relates to the\ following items:\ \ • total fuel for the delivery round,\ • number of items delivered\ \ • number of items delivered\ • emission factor to convert fuel to emissions\ \ • emission factor to convert fuel to emissions\ \ For the example, the 250 g item is one of 275\ items delivered as part of an entire mail delivery\ round.\ \ The total fuel consumption is 7.3 liters\ \ Fuel per item is therefore\ 7.3l/275 = 0.02655l/item\ \ The GHG emissions per item are as follows:\ • Energy provision emissions (WTT): 0.0220kg\ \ • Energy provision emissions (WTT): 0.0220kg\ CO2e/item\ • Operational emissions (TTW): 0.0659 kg CO2e/\ \ • Operational emissions (TTW): 0.0659 kg CO2e/\ item\ • Total emissions (WTW): 0.0880 kg CO2e/item\ \ item\ • Total emissions (WTW): 0.0880 kg CO2e/item\ using the EU average WTW value for a 7%\ biodiesel/diesel blend\ \ The information is now available to insert\ values A (TCE1) and B (TCE9) into the overall\ calculation framework, leading to the following\ completed calculation (see Table 5).\ \ item\ • Total emissions (WTW): 0.0880 kg CO2e/item\ using the EU average WTW value for a 7%\ biodiesel/diesel blend\ \ Table 5\ Example of a mail and parcel transport chain by TCEs\ \ | | | | WTW emission intensity | Unit | Data category |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 1 | Tracked collection round | own transport | | | Primary |\ | 2 | Logistics site | own site | 4.1 | kg CO2e/t | Primary |\ | 3 | Road feeder to main terminal | own transport | 0.11 | kg CO2e/t-km | Primary |\ | 4 | Logistics site | own site | 4.6 | kg CO2e/t | Primary |\ | 5 | Air main haul | own plane | 0.563 | kg CO2e/t-km | Primary |\ | 6 | Logistics site | contracted, shared site | 1.3 | kg CO2e/t | Default\* |\ | 7 | Rail feeder to local delivery hub | contracted service | 0.03 | kg CO2e/t-km | Default\*\* |\ | 8 | Logistics site | contracted, shared site | 1.3 | kg CO2e/t | Default\* |\ | 9 | Untracked delivery round | own transport | | | Primary |\ | | Total | | | | |\ \ | | Transport activity distance(km) | Transport activity(tkm) | WTT emissions(kgCO2e) | TTW emissions(kgCO2e) | WTW emissions(kgCO2e) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | | - | 0.0173 | 0.0856 | 0.1029 |\ | | - | - | 0.0006 | 0.0027 | 0.0010 |\ | | 120 | 0.030 | | | 0.0033 |\ | | - | - | 0.1452 | 0.5304 | 0.0012 |\ | | 4800 | 1.200 | | | 0.6756 |\ | | - | - | 0.0007 | 0.0023 | 0.0003 |\ | | 400 | 0.100 | | | 0.0030 |\ | | - | - | | | 0.0003 |\ | | | - | 0.0220 | 0.0659 | 0.0879 |\ | | | | | | 0.8756 |\ \ - logistics site default, ambient transshipment center\ \\*\\* European diesel rail default for general cargo\ \ \\*\\* European diesel rail default for general cargo\ \ * * *\ \ 1.6 Limited data access, mix of primary\ and secondary data\ \ It is not always possible to source all necessary\ data in the form of primary data. Where primary\ data for energy consumption or transport activity\ data (cargo mass and distances on consignment\ level) are not available, these need to be derived\ in the form of secondary data, as modeled or\ default data.\ \ Examples:\ If a company has very good data on most\ \ Examples:\ If a company has very good data on most\ linehaul operations but not on the first or\ last mile delivery, it can get this data or at\ least a representative example as a basis for\ modeling data from contracted carriers. If these\ contracted carriers are not able to provide\ such data or do not account for a significant\ amount of data (the threshold depends on the\ assessed impact the lack of such data has on\ the final emission results), proxy data needs to\ be collected, e.g., in the form of information on\ fleet composition from country authorities or\ acknowledged databases. As far as information\ on average filling rates is concerned, default\ data from Section 3 Module 2 may be used,\ depending on the cargo mix carried.\ \ of developed countries 5‒10 years ago, older\ versions of HBEFA may be checked for suitable\ data. Alternatively, local data needs to be\ tracked which may entail dedicated projects.\ In case there is no fuel consumption data\ available, then the fuel/energy consumption and\ related GHG activity need to be derived solely\ from the transport activity:\ \ • the sum of freight mass (tonnes) multiplied\ by the activity distance (km) multiplied by the\ emission intensity of a modeled TOC\ \ Example:\ HBEFA provides a very granular database of\ \ Example:\ HBEFA provides a very granular database of\ default values for vehicle fuel consumption. It\ takes into consideration the most emissionsensitive parameters. These conditions may\ be remodeled (by a tool) whereas the actual\ activity (route in region X with street category\ Y etc.) is mirrored by the respective parameter\ combination in the database. For example,\ if a transport from Munich to Hamburg in\ Germany needs to be modeled, the average\ vehicle size operating on that route is taken as\ basic reference (40t truck, Euro class 6) and\ related parameters are chosen: 60% filling rate,\ 17% empty trip, 95% highway share, medium\ congestion, hilly topography. This combination\ would lead to a certain fuel/energy consumption\ which is then applied as the TOC emission\ intensity value (CO2e g/tkm WTW).\ \ Therefore, default values need to be chosen\ according to emission sensitive parameters,\ and ideally assumptions on which they are\ used should be specified in the reporting. In\ many cases, the use of measured primary data\ in combination with the use of secondary data\ is necessary.\ \ parameters case by case bottom up, a default\ value may be used. When choosing a default\ value, it is important that the characteristics of\ the actual transport match as closely as possible\ the assumptions that are behind the calculation\ of the default values.\ \ Figure 3 shows the impact that vehicle size, load\ factor and share of empty runs can have on the\ resulting emission intensity. This shows how\ \ Figure 3\ 26\ Impact of empty trip share, filling rate and vehicle size on emissions\ \ WTW-Greenhouse gas emissions from trucks (Euro VI)\ \ Quelle: Darstellung auf Basis von EcoTransIT (2017)\ \ * * *\ \ Example:\ The network contains all planned distances\ \ The network contains all planned distances\ according to the TMS used. The fleet which is\ running on each origin/destination combination\ (TCE) is only roughly known: <40t trucks on\ collection and distribution trips, >40t trucks on\ linehaul trips.\ \ In such a case, you can create two TOCs: one\ for the collection and distribution trips, and one\ for the linehaul trips. For each TOC, you need\ to indicate the share of primary data used. The\ remaining share of data may be either modeled\ based on primary data, or the industry average\ of the respective country and/or region may be\ taken as proxy. The process of extrapolation\ to 100% of vehicles operating in the network\ needs to be described in a transparent way and\ it needs to be audited.\ \ Any deviation from the default filling rate (60%\ in Europe) and empty trip factor (17% in Europe)\ needs to be proven through measurement. For\ example, if all freight mass is weighed before\ pick up by a truck and the amount of trucks\ per size class operating for a certain transport\ activity is known, an average filling rate may be\ safely calculated based on this data.\ \ intensity data also to the remaining 20% of the\ fleet. If, however, vehicles from some TOCs are\ not represented in the primary data at all, or data\ is available for only a small share of vehicles for\ one specific TOC, GHG intensity for this TOC\ must be modeled with a bottom-up approach\ or using default data, as it cannot always be\ assumed that the small sample reflects the GHG\ intensity of the fleet of the entire TOC.\ \ Rail transport can usually be calculated using\ the same logic as road transport, i.e., the TOCs\ follow emission sensitive parameters and\ are applied to the different TCEs. However,\ some rail-specific characteristics need to be\ considered:\ • Most rail services are operated to a fixed\ \ train length may vary.\ • Furthermore, train types vary significantly\ according to their configuration: e.g., trains\ designed to transport cars carry a certain\ number of vehicles on their chassis, block\ trains are composed of wagons of a certain\ size, container trains carry crane-able road and\ sea containers.\ • The energy mix of rail transport may change\ \ geographical location. While rail carriers\ operating the train system can calculate\ emissions based on more detailed and usually\ primary data, shippers are often limited to\ using either data from the carrier or general\ rail transport default data. Shippers can use\ the following process when scrutinizing the\ data provided by their rail carrier.\ \ The principles of calculating GHG emissions\ from rail freight are always similar, regardless\ of the propulsion system of the train or the\ \ Figure 4\ 27\ Data flow of rail transport – from rail carrier to shipper\ \ * * *\ \ Example:\ To illustrate the practical implementation of rail\ \ To illustrate the practical implementation of rail\ GHG emissions two examples are used (US\ EPA26) with data from GaBi\* U.S. EPA 2022,\ with data from GaBi Version: 10.0.1.92 26).\ \ 1. Conventional electric rail wagon operation\ in Europe\ 2. Diesel intermodal rail operation in the US\ \ in Europe\ 2\. Diesel intermodal rail operation in the US\ \ Example 1: Conventional electric rail\ wagon operation in Europe\ This solution is based on a roundtrip going north\ \ wagon operation in Europe\ This solution is based on a roundtrip going north\ and south with different use. The shipper making\ use of this data should use the average emission\ factor as this takes transport inefficiencies into\ consideration.\ \ Emissions from the train operator’s perspective:\ \ Table 6\ Calculation of a conventional rail transport in Europe\ \ | Electric cargo train | Unit |\ | --- | --- |\ | Length | m |\ | Number of locomotives | n |\ | Locomotive | tonne |\ | Wagons | tonne |\ | Wagon | tonne |\ | Wagons capacity | tonne |\ | Max gross weight | tonne |\ | Cargo capacity | tonne |\ | Gross weight empty | tonne |\ | Load factor | % |\ | Cargo weight | tonne |\ | Gross weight | tonne |\ | Electric distribution losses | % |\ | Measured electric consumptions per vehicle km vkm, including distribution losses | kWh/vkm |\ | CO2wtw European average | g/kWh |\ | Electric consumption per net-t km, including distribution losses | kWh/tkm |\ | GHG(CO2per vehicle km) | g/vkm |\ | Distance | km |\ | GHG emissions wtw | kg |\ | Transport activity | |\ | GHG(CO2ewtw per tkm) | g/tkm |\ \ | | South | North | Roundtrip average |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 630 | 630 | 630 |\ | | 1 | 1 | 1 |\ | | 78 | 78 | 78 |\ | | 22 | 22 | 22 |\ | | 30 | 30 | 30 |\ | | 60 | 60 | 60 |\ | | 2,058 | 2,058 | 2,058 |\ | | 1,320 | 1,320 | 1,320 |\ | | 738 | 738 | 738 |\ | | 100 | 60 | 80 |\ | | 1,320 | 792 | 1,056 |\ | | 2,058 | 1,530 | 1,794 |\ | | 10% | 10% | 10% |\ | | 27 | 23 | 25 |\ | | 322 | 322 | 322 |\ | | 0.021 | 0.030 | 0.024 |\ | | 8,765 | 7,557 | 8,183 |\ | | 400 | 400 | |\ | | 3,506 | 3,023 | |\ | | 6.64 | 9.53 | 7.75 |\ \ - GaBi has now been rebranded as Product\ \ Sustainability Solutions Software\ \ * * *\ \ Example 2: Diesel intermodal rail operation\ in the US\ This solution is based on a roundtrip going east\ \ This solution is based on a roundtrip going east\ and west with an assumed average use of 70%.\ The shipper making use of this data should\ use the average emission factor as this takes\ transport inefficiencies into consideration.\ \ Emissions from the train operator’s perspective:\ \ Table 7\ Calculation of a diesel train operation in the US\ \ | Diesel intermodal train | Unit | East | West |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Allowed length | ft | 6,000 | |\ | Locomotive length | ft | 76 | |\ | Number of locomotives | n | 3 | |\ | Total wagon length | ft | 5,772 | |\ | Wagons length | ft | 53 | |\ | Wagon use | % | 80 | |\ | Number of wagons | n | 109 | |\ | Number of TEU per wagon | n | 4 | |\ | Total number of TEU | n | 436 | |\ | Tare weight wagon | ton | 30 | |\ | Tare weight TEU | ton | 4 | |\ | Locomotive weight | ton | 645 | |\ | Total tare weight | ton | 3,928 | |\ | TEU weight capacity | ton | 29 | |\ | Load factor | % | 70 | |\ | Total cargo weight | ton | 8,843 | |\ | Train gross weight | ton | 12,771 | |\ | Fuel consumption | gal/m | 12.78 | |\ | GHG wtw | g/gal | 11,898 | |\ | GHG wtw | g/m | 152,087 | |\ | GHG wtw | g/tm | 17.2 | |\ | Energy | MJ/m | 1,744 | |\ | Energy | MJ/tm | 0.20 | |\ | Energy | kWh/tm | 0.05 | |\ \ | West | Roundtrip average | Comment |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | 10,000 | 15,000 | Further information |\ | 76 | 76 | Further information |\ | 4 | 6 | Further information |\ | 9,696 | 14,544 | |\ | 53 | 53 | |\ | 80 | 80 | |\ | 183 | 274 | |\ | 4 | 4 | 40ft double-stack assumed |\ | 732 | 1098 | |\ | 30 | 30 | |\ | 4 | 4 | |\ | 860 | 1,290 | Further information |\ | 6,364 | 9,538 | |\ | 29 | 29 | |\ | 70 | 70 | Further information |\ | 14,855 | 22,283 | |\ | 21,219 | 31,821 | |\ | 21.24 | 31.85 | Efficiency of 999,1 tm/gal based on 2020 R1 data |\ | 11,898 | 378,940 | |\ | 252,690 | 378,940 | |\ | 17.0 | 17.0 | |\ | 2,897 | 4,345 | |\ | 0.20 | 0.19 | |\ | 0.05 | 0.05 | |\ \ And from the shipper’s perspective:\ \ | Cargo weight | ton | 50 |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Distance | m | 2672 |\ | Transport Activity | tm | 133595 |\ | Emission factor | g/tm | 17.0 |\ | GHG(CO2ewtw) | kg | 2273 |\ \ * * *\ \ 3. Calculation of GHG Emissions\ from Air Transport\ \ The key calculation aspects to take into account\ for air cargo transport are set out in Section 1,\ Chapter 4, on Modal Considerations.\ \ To repeat in short:\ • Activities in scope are all fuel use and other\ \ • Activities in scope are all fuel use and other\ GHG activities needed to operate the\ aircraft, starting with taxiing, and to keep the\ cargo in the required condition (including the\ use of refrigerants for perishables and/or airconditioning).\ • Emissions resulting from the handling of cargo\ \ conditioning).\ • Emissions resulting from the handling of cargo\ in an airport terminal or warehouse are\ included in the calculation through the\ definition and use of appropriate hub operation\ categories (HOCs). The emission calculation\ for the hub activity in a specific transport chain\ requires the emission intensity of each of the\ HOC to be applied to the throughput at each\ hub in the transport chain.\ • The allocation between passengers and freight\ \ hub in the transport chain.\ • The allocation between passengers and freight\ emissions are only mass based. Passenger\ mass is actual passenger mass + the mass of\ their accompanying baggage; if primary data is\ not available a default mass of 100 kg is\ applied. Cargo mass is the mass without\ load carrier, according to the ISO 14083\ provision of consignment mass and load\ carrier definition.\ \ • Where a TCE calculation is made bottom-up\ based on an emission intensity using actual\ distance flown, rather than the GCD of the\ individual leg, then a Distance Adjustment\ Factor (DAF) of 95 km needs to be applied as\ part of the calculation.\ \ 3.1 Calculations based on primary data\ \ Due to the strict logging of aircraft movements,\ primary data is always available for the air\ transport provider. Air carriers can therefore\ calculate their organizational carbon footprint by\ simply adding all flight emissions over a year.\ \ For customers of aviation, the situation is very\ different. For a carbon footprint calculation\ Scope 3 (forwarders and shippers), the\ emissions are calculated for the trips (TCEs)\ booked by the customer. Such calculations\ should be based on a choice of TOC that\ enables customers to make reasonable\ decisions:\ \ Note: It is a community decision whether a\ • If the customer wants to replace fossil pandemic or a war situation is accounted for as\ kerosene by (SAF) on a certain route (airport “temporary” or not. If the industry risks missing\ pair), they need to receive emission data at a its climate target on a mid-term or even longport pair granularity level, i.e., at least the fleet’s term scale, it is certainly not to be regarded as\ average emissions operating on this port pair “temporary”.\ during the summer and winter schedule.\ The best aggregation level is always the fleet\ \ an ISO 14083 compliant calculation needs to\ balance directional impacts: the emissions on\ the specific route, e.g., Frankfurt to New York,\ shall not depend on the direction (with or against\ the jet stream) and also not on the season\ when the flight actually takes place to enable a\ consistent customer promise.\ \ It is also recommended to not separate out\ seasonal data i.e., don’t calculate summer vs.\ winter flight conditions separately.\ \ • If the customer has their own target with yearon-year (YOY) carbon reduction budgets, they\ need to receive a robust, evened-out, emission\ report which reflects the route specifics and\ is sensitive to any operational or fleet related\ improvements the airline is undertaking, but\ not sensitive to any conditions which are\ neither under the control of the carrier nor of its\ transport patterns, such as weather conditions\ or temporary flight restrictions.\ \ The recommended maximum aggregated TOC\ to be applied is the aircraft type’s GHG activity\ in distance clusters, long-haul and short-haul,\ either split between passenger and freighter\ aircraft types or combined where this cannot\ be separated or is unknown. However, where\ combined the transport activity (RTK/tkm) ratio\ of two respective aircraft types need to be\ indicated, i.e., XX% of RTK in belly aircrafts and\ YY% in freighter aircrafts. If such information is\ not available, a well-based assumption needs to\ be taken and the assumptions should be made\ transparent in the reporting.\ \ Note: It is a community decision whether a\ pandemic or a war situation is accounted for as\ “temporary” or not. If the industry risks missing\ its climate target on a mid-term or even longterm scale, it is certainly not to be regarded as\ “temporary”.\ \ Example calculation\ Considering one TOC composed of different\ \ Example calculation\ Considering one TOC composed of different\ aircraft types operating over one year, carrying\ both passengers and belly freight, the table 1 in\ Section 3 Module 2 gives an indicative example\ of the calculation of the transport activity of the\ TOC, expressed in passenger equivalents (peq).\ \ The equivalence used is 100 kg per passenger\ and luggage, therefore, 1 tonne of freight equals\ 10 peq.\ \ The assumptions for this example are: 400\ flights of 1000 km on average.\ \ The percentage of the total transport activity\ gives the share of GHG emissions within the\ TOC between passengers and freight.\ \ * * *\ \ Table 8\ Example of calculation of share of GHG emissions with a TOC passenger aircraft with belly freight\ \ | category | unit | average capacity of aircraft | average occupancy rate (or load factor)(%) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | passengers | passenger | 180 | 80% |\ | freight | tonne | 5 | 70% |\ | all | peq | 230 | 77.8% |\ \ | transport activity(unit-km) | mass per unit(tonne) | transport activity(tkm) | share of transport activity per category |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | 57,600,000 | 0.1 | 5,760,000 | 80% |\ | 1,400,000 | 1 | 1,400,000 | 20% |\ | 71,600,000 | 0.1 | 7,160,000 | 100% |\ \ Assuming a reported primary fuel consumption of 7,000 kg of aviation fuel for the average 1,000 km flight within\ this TOC, then the calculation for a 275 kg consignment would be as follows:\ \ Energy provision (WTT) TOC GHG emission intensity = 400 x 7,000 x 0.66 / 7,160,000 = 0.258 kg CO2e / tkm\ Operational (TTW) TOC GHG emission intensity = 400 x 7,000 x 3.18 / 7,160,000 = 1.244 kg CO2e / tkm\ Total (WTW) TOC GHG emission intensity = 400 x 7,000 x 3.84 / 7,160,000 = 1.502 kg CO2e / tkm\ \ Transport activity = 0.275 x 1000 = 275 tkm\ \ For the TCE calculation:\ \ Energy provision (WTT) GHG emissions = 275 x 0.258 = 71.0 kg CO2e\ Operational (TTW) GHG emissions = 275 x 1.244 = 342.1 kg CO2e\ Total (WTW) GHG emissions = 275 x 1.502 = 413.1 kg CO2e\ \ 3.2 Advice for calculations based on\ secondary data\ \ These values are based on specific assumptions\ which, while representative for typical industry\ conditions, may not bear much resemblance to\ the actual emission intensity of a particular flight\ because there is a lot of variability in the key\ influencing parameters. Deviations can easily be\ \+/\- 50% from the default value, such that for a\ default emission intensity of 800 g CO2e/tkm the\ actual value could be as low as 400 g/tkm or up\ to 1,200 g/tkm.\ \ The use of default data should generally be\ avoided, particularly in aviation, where flights\ need to be logged in detail. For cases where\ such primary data is not available, default\ emission intensities are provided for a limited\ selection of air transport TOCs in Module 2.\ \ minimum:\ • scheduled route, including all transshipment\ stops. (Note that technical stops do not need\ to be included in the model. While they add\ fuel consumption, they enable carrying of less\ fuel on the aircraft, which by and large evens\ out the effect.)\ • scheduled fleet composition (which includes\ \ * * *\ \ • modeled fuel consumption of all respective\ aircraft types involved, i.e., engine-type\ related fuel consumption (with transparent\ use of manufacturer data or evaluation of an\ extensive set of primary data, including any\ such calculations)\ • industry average load per aircraft type (with\ \ • industry average load per aircraft type (with\ all passenger and freighter aircraft averages\ separated as a minimum) during a scheduled\ period, and calculation with evened out\ emissions over one year.\ \ Additional, desirable parameters include:\ • aircraft type’s seat and belly capacity\ \ • aircraft type’s seat and belly capacity\ configuration and related load capacity\ • knowledge of aircraft type’s actual operation,\ \ • knowledge of aircraft type’s actual operation,\ i.e., where is it actually flying (which may\ deviate from schedule)\ \ NOTE: It is imperative that all GHG activity\ related parameters, such as aircraft types and\ their load factor, fuel consumption related\ thereto, route specifics etc., are modeled and\ aggregated in a direction and season agnostic\ way, i.e., evened out in both route directions and\ over the summer and winter schedule in order\ to avoid differences in calculation outputs for\ different clients and Scope 3 reporting entities\ for the same port pair operated by the same\ fleet composition at different times of the year or\ in different directions (FRA–NYC vs. NYC–FRA).\ \ 3.3 Calculation of GHG activities other\ than fuel use\ \ be taken into account:\ • With primary data, the carrier needs to add\ the average emissions due to the aircraft’s\ air-conditioning to the emission intensity per\ tonne-km. Where there is a significant\ difference between the use of refrigerants in\ passenger vs. freighter aircraft, or in different\ distance classes etc., such emissions need\ to be allocated within the relevant TOC, i.e.,\ proportionately to their end use.\ • With modeling, industry average values for\ \ indicated as a separate value.\ • With temperature-controlled cargo, e.g.,\ perishables such as fresh fish, flowers etc.,\ the applied refrigerants need to be tracked\ separately and their emissions allocated to the\ respective cargo.\ \ NOTE: With additional cargo related accessories\ such as ice bags or similar, these accessories\ need to be accounted for separately in terms\ of additional cargo weight (which increases fuel\ consumption and fuel related emissions): e.g.\ 1 tonne of fresh fish which requires an ice bed\ of 500 kg, the total weight would be 1.5 tonnes.\ In addition, the amount of energy used for the\ temperature control of the ice bed needs to be\ accounted for.\ \ 4. Calculation of GHG Emissions\ from Sea Transport\ \ As sea shipping can be conducted on different\ vessel types (bulk ships, container vessels,\ RoRo and RoPax ferries, ferries and others), the\ methodology, especially the allocation to the\ different cargo types, may vary. It is therefore\ important to apply the methodology specified\ for the respective type of service.\ \ Currently, three levels of information (TOC\ aggregation) are available, depending on the\ level of information about origin and destination\ known to the user (see tables 16 and 17 in\ Section 3 Module 2):\ • The overall Clean Cargo industry average\ \ 4.1 Container Transport\ \ • The overall Clean Cargo industry average\ • Five sets of aggregated data for major trade\ lane groupings (see figure below) based on a\ weighted average of flows on the detailed trade\ lanes included within each grouping.\ • The full set of Clean Cargo trade lanes\ \ One major type, especially in global shipping,\ is ocean container vessels. The related\ methodology has been developed and revised\ over many years by Clean Cargo (see also\ Chapter 2.3) which represents 85% of the\ world’s container shipping.\ \ For non-Clean Cargo members trade lanespecific carbon intensities are provided,\ averaged over all reporting carriers, on an annual\ basis (see Section 3, Module 2). The user needs\ to take into account that the emission intensities\ are based on a 70% industry average load\ factor and a mix of services on the respective\ trade lane which contain a different number of\ port calls. These values may be applied for any\ port-to-port journey. The end user factors for\ containerized shipping are calculated according\ to the stages presented in the Clean Cargo\ methodology24 which is currently elevated to a\ higher granularity level of TOCs.\ \ The original emission intensities are based on\ actual distances, meaning that users would\ need to apply a DAF of 15% to compensate\ for the difference between actual and shortest\ feasible distance. However, the end user factors\ shown in tables 16 and 17 of Section 3, Module\ 2 have been adjusted for this already, so that the\ user can apply the planned distance directly.\ \ * * *\ \ Example:\ A shipper transports 10 container twenty-foot\ \ Example:\ A shipper transports 10 container twenty-foot\ equivalent units (TEUs) from Hamburg to\ Shanghai. It may apply the end user emission\ intensity value for the Asia to-from North-\ Europe trade lane, which reads 44.1 g CO2e/\ TEU-km. A sea-routing tool may tell them that\ the port-to-port distance would be 21,000 km.\ The total emission for these 10 TEUs would be:\ \ 10 TEUs x 21,000 km x 44.1 g CO2e/TEU-km\ = 9.26 tonnes CO2e.\ \ Where 5 of the 10 TEUs are reefer containers,\ the emission intensity for reefer transport on\ this trade lane, which is 114.8 g CO2e/TEU-km,\ needs to be applied, resulting in 5 TEU x 21,000\ km x 114.8 g/TEU-km = 12.05 tonnes CO2e for\ these 5 containers.\ \ The challenges for a carrier in calculating its\ emission intensity from primary data inputs are:\ • the distance between the loading and\ \ 4.2 Use of primary data\ \ Clean Cargo provides GHG emission intensities\ based on primary data at different TOC\ granularity levels, depending on membership\ status. The highest aggregation is trade lane\ specific across all carriers in Clean Cargo. Such\ annually published data is designed for use by\ companies that need to calculate and report\ Scope 3 sea container transport emissions.\ \ • the distance between the loading and\ discharge ports within a loop (service), i.e.,\ TCE based;\ • the actual container load per TCE (excluding\ \ • the actual container load per TCE (excluding\ empty containers);\ \ • the identification of a relevant TOC and its\ characteristics;\ • the total transport activity for the TOC,\ \ • the total transport activity for the TOC,\ quantified in TEU-km;\ • the share of reefer containers loaded (i.e.,\ \ • the share of reefer containers loaded (i.e.,\ capacity use of reefer slots between two ports)\ for the TOC;\ • the actual fuel consumption of each type of\ \ • the actual fuel consumption of each type of\ fuel for the TOC;\ • the energy consumption of the auxiliary\ \ • the energy consumption of the auxiliary\ engines for the TOC;\ • the energy consumption of shore power\ \ • the energy consumption of shore power\ while at berth in each port – which should be\ converted to GHG emissions and added to the\ emission total of the TOC;\ • the refrigerant use for each vessel associated\ \ • the refrigerant use for each vessel associated\ with the TOC.\ \ Emission intensities need to be created per\ TEU-km and, alongside, per tkm (calculated\ using either actual TEU filling rates or a standard\ conversion of 10 tonnes per TEU). Alternatively,\ a value of 6 tonnes may be used for lightweight\ cargo or 14.5 tonnes for heavyweight cargo, if\ the use of these categories can be justified.\ \ • All port pair emissions, including the emissions\ while staying in the port, may be aggregated\ over a vessel’s complete round trip with\ emission intensities in g/TEU-km and g/tkm,\ which apply to all port pairs within such a\ round trip, derived from it.\ • Several vessels’ emissions could be\ \ Useful aggregation levels may be derived from\ such data. These are all available to a carrier, but\ should not be combined in the same system:\ • All port pair emissions, including the emissions\ \ Whatever the case, a carrier should deliver TOC\ and TCE based primary data which are fully ISO\ 14083 compliant.\ \ 4.3 Use of secondary (modeled) data\ \ There are numerous tools which model ocean\ shipping data to a wide range of granularities,\ from tracking vessels via GPS, with detailed\ knowledge on engine power, filling rates by\ the measured draught and even fuel type\ compositions, through to calculators applying\ average parameters for distances, vessel size\ and filling rates, fuel type compositions, etc. The\ calculations produced by different tools with\ different granularity levels need to be examined\ in detail to secure comparability.\ \ Any modeling needs to be conducted using a\ set of TOCs that follow the principles of ISO\ 14083\. Distances used to calculate the TOC’s\ emission intensity should use SFD, or where\ not available the TCE transport activity must be\ adjusted using an appropriate DAF. Any empty\ running also needs to be included within the\ TOC calculation. Although tempting, the use\ of the most granular modeling approaches\ can easily breach these conditions. As such\ the Scope 3 calculation would exclude a share\ of detours due to weather conditions, port\ congestion etc. which would breach the core\ principles of ISO 14083. (It is important to arrive\ at realistic emissions which the Scope 3 emitter\ needs to account for, especially given the\ carbon price tag and high investments needed\ to replace fossil marine fuels by non-fossil\ alternatives.)\ \ * * *\ \ 4.4 Bulk Sea Transport\ \ Bulk shipping, particularly in the form of\ short-term time charters, is one of the limited\ exceptions identified in ISO 14083 where a\ round trip logic to the TOC definition is not\ compulsory. Even here it is important to include\ any associated empty running into consideration\ as part of the TOC definition, so the emissions\ associated with a preceding ballast leg, if there\ is one, need to be included. (One option to help\ reduce emissions from shipping charters is to\ avoid chartering vessels that require a ballast leg\ to fulfil the contract.)\ \ Example:\ The following example focuses on the following\ \ The following example focuses on the following\ fictitious scenario.\ \ A shipping company charters a bulk vessel\ for a voyage from Asia to South America and\ subcharters space on the vessel out to two\ customers to transport freight from different\ locations in South America to Asia.\ \ In this case the charterer agrees with its\ customers that the TOC is defined by the single\ trip. The transport chain consists of the following\ elements (see Table 9):\ \ Developing the TOC Calculation\ \ The TOC is defined as the sum of TCEs 1, 3, 5\ and 7 and the emissions and intensity should be\ calculated for the TOC and applied to each of\ the TCEs. The emissions associated with each\ hub from the loading and unloading activity\ would be calculated according to the HOC\ associated with each of the hubs.\ \ The TOC is defined as the sum of TCEs 1, 3, 5\ and 7 and the emissions and intensity should be\ calculated for the TOC and applied to each of\ the TCEs. The emissions associated with each\ hub from the loading and unloading activity\ would be calculated according to the HOC\ associated with each of the hubs.\ \ The operational characteristics known to the\ charterer are shown in Table 10. Cargo owner A’s\ cargo is loaded first at location B and remains\ onboard until location D. Cargo owner B’s\ cargo is then loaded at location C and remains\ onboard until location E.\ \ Table 9\ Example of transport chain elements of a bulk sea transport\ \ | Location | Leg description | Location | Leg description | Location | Leg description | Location | Leg description | Location |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | A(Asia) | A>B | B(S. Am.) | B>C | C(S. Am.) | C>D | D(Asia) | D>E | E(Asia) |\ | | TCE1 | TCE2 | TCE3 | TCE4 | TCE5 | TCE6 | TCE7 | TCE8 |\ | | Ballast leg | Hub(loading) | Laden leg1 | Hub(loading) | Laden leg2 | Hub(unloading) | Laden leg3 | Hub(unloading) |\ \ Table 10\ Example of characteristics of TCEs of a bulk sea charter transport\ \ | | TCE1 | TCE3 | TCE5 | TCE7 | Total |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Fuel(VLSFO)Cons(T) | 381.27 | 83.75 | 780.20 | 82.26 | Total |\ | Fuel(MGO)Cons(T) | 1.02 | 0.36 | 15.40 | 3.10 | Total |\ | Distance(km) | 7565 | 1458 | 11844 | 1432 | Total |\ | Total Freight(T) | 0 | 39,369 | 56,855 | 17,486 | Total |\ | Total Activity(tkm) | 0 | 57,400,002 | 673,390,620 | 25,039,952 | Total |\ | Cargo ownerA Cargo(T) | 0 | 39,369 | 39,369 | 0 | Total |\ | Cargo ownerA TransportActivity(tkm) | 0 | 57,400,002 | 466,286,436 | 0 | Total |\ | Cargo ownerB Cargo(T) | | | 17,486 | 17,486 | Total |\ | Cargo ownerB TransportActivity(tkm) | 0 | 0 | 207,104,184 | 25,039,952 | Total |\ \ * * *\ \ The TOC emissions are based on the total of each fuel used, as follows:\ \ Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO)>\ Energy production GHG emissions: 1327.48 × 1000 × 0.68 = 902,686 kg CO2e\ Operational GHG emissions: 1327.48 × 1000 × 3.16 = 4,194,837 kg CO2e\ Total GHG emissions: 1327.48 × 1000 × 3.84 = 5,097,523 kg CO2e\ \ Marine Gas Oil (MGO)\ Energy production GHG emissions: 19.88 × 1000 × 0.61 = 12,127 kg CO2\ \ Energy production GHG emissions: 19.88 × 1000 × 0.61 = 12,127 kg CO2e\ Operational GHG emissions: 19.88 × 1000 × 3.26 = 64,809 kg CO2e\ Total GHG emissions: 19.88 × 1000 × 3.87 = 76,936 kg CO2e\ \ Emission factors for VLSFO and MGO taken from Module 1 for North America.\ \ Total TOC energy production GHG emissions: 902,686 + 12,127 = 914,813 kg CO2e\ Total TOC operational GHG emissions: 4,194,837 + 64,809 = 4,259,646 kg CO2e\ Total TOC GHG emissions: 5,097,523 + 76,936 = 5,174,459 kg CO2e\ \ GHG emission intensity = total GHG emissions divided by the total transport activity.\ \ Because the charterer has to rely on default data for the hub operations, and the hubs are all\ considered to be generic bulk terminals, they use a default value of 1.3 kg CO2e / t.\ \ Calculation for the Whole Transport Chain for Cargo Owner A\ \ HOC Characteristics\ \ The calculation applies for the TCE’s where Cargo Owner A’s cargo was transported\ (TCEs 3 and 5) or handled (i.e. loaded TCE 2 and unloaded TCE 6).\ \ Table 11\ Example of characteristics of TCEs of a bulk sea charter transport\ \ | | TCE1 | TCE2 | TCE3 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | TOC Activity | 0 | 0 | 57,400,002 |\ | HOC Activity | | 39,369 | |\ | Energy Production GHG Intensity(kgCO2e/tkm) | 0.00121 | 0 | 0.00121 |\ | Energy Production GHG Emissions(kgCO2e) | 0 | 0 | 69,474 |\ | Operational GHG Intensity(kgCO2e/tkm) | 0.00564 | 1.3 | 0.00564 |\ | Operational GHG Emissions(kgCO2e) | 0 | 51,180 | 323,490 |\ | Overall GHG Intensity(kgCO2e/tkm) | 0.00676 | 1.3 | 0.00676 |\ | Total GHG Emissions(kgCO2e) | 0 | 51,180 | 392,964 |\ \ | TCE4 | TCE5 | TCE6 | TCE7 | TCE8 |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | | 466,286,436 | | 0 | |\ | 0 | | 39,369 | | 0 |\ | 0 | 0.00121 | 0 | 0.00121 | 0 |\ | 0 | 564,366 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\ | 1.3 | 0.00564 | 1.3 | 0.00564 | 1.3 |\ | 0 | 2,627,857 | 51,180 | 0 | 0 |\ | 1.3 | 0.00676 | 1.3 | 0.00676 | 1.3 |\ | 0 | 3,192,223 | 51,180 | 0 | 0 |\ \ NOTE: GHG emissions are zero for TCE 1, the ballast leg, because the actual emissions for\ this leg are reallocated to the transport activity across the rest of the transport chain.\ \ \\mathrm{C O\_{2}e}\ \ The overall GHG emission intensity for the transport chain of Cargo Owner A is calculated as\ the total GHG emissions divided by the total transport activity:\ 3,687,546 / 523,686,438 = 0.00704 kg CO2e / tkm.\ \ * * *\ \ 4.5 RoPax Ferry Transport\ \ The operator of a RoPax ferry line wishes to calculate and report the freight transport component\ of its GHG emissions from its ferry operations over a period of time.\ \ Example:\ During the period in question the ferry line uses 4000 t of VLSFO on a regular route with\ \ During the period in question the ferry line uses 4000 t of VLSFO on a regular route with\ transport distance of 120km.\ \ Energy production emissions: 4000 × 1000 × 0.68 = 2,720,000 kg CO2e\ Operational emissions: 4000 × 1000 × 3.16 = 12,640,000 kg CO2e\ Total emissions: 4000 × 1000 × 3.84 = 15,360,000 kg CO2e\ \ Emission factors for VLSFO taken from Module 1 for North America.\ \ Table 12\ Example of different transport activities of a RoPax ferry\ \ | | Quantity | Passenger equivalents | Total peq | Transport Activity share(%) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Passenger&luggage | 478500 | 1 | 478500 | 37.5 |\ | Passenger car | 90000 | 1.3 | 117000 | 9.2 |\ | Bus | 1000 | 10 | 10000 | 0.8 |\ | Caravan(Small) | 500 | 1.1 | 550 | 0.0 |\ | Caravan(Medium) | 500 | 2.3 | 1150 | 0.1 |\ | Caravan(Large) | 500 | 3.5 | 1750 | 0.1 |\ | Motorcycle | 1000 | 0.3 | 300 | 0.0 |\ | Unaccompanied HGV trail | 4000 | 14 | 56000 | 4.4 |\ | HGV | 34000 | 18 | 612000 | 47.9 |\ | Total | | | 1277250 | 100 |\ \ Using the calculated share of GHG emissions the breakdown of the freight component is as follows:\ \ Unaccompanied Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) trailers:\ Energy production GHG emissions: 0.044 x 2,720,000 = 119,256 kg CO2e\ Operational GHG emissions: 0.044 × 12,640,000 = 554,191 kg CO2e\ Total GHG emissions: 0.044 × 15,360,000 = 673,447 kg CO2e\ \ HGVs:\ Energy production GHG emissions: 0.479 x 2,720,000 = 1,303,300 kg CO2e\ Operational GHG emissions: 0.479 × 12,640,000 = 6,056,512 kg CO2e\ Total GHG emissions: 0.479 × 15,360,000 = 7,359,812 kg CO2e\ \ HGVs:\ Energy production GHG emissions: 0.479 x 2,720,000 = 1,303,300 kg CO2\ \ Taking the average mass of a typical HGV to be 29.6t, comprising 14t for the unladen vehicle and\ 15.6 for the load then the GHG emission intensities for both the overall laden HGV and the load\ within would be as follows:\ \ GHG emission intensities for the overall laden HGV:\ Energy production GHG emission intensity: 1,303,300 / (34,000 x 120 x 29.6) = 0.0108 kg CO2e/tkm\ Operational GHG emission intensity: 6,056,512 / (34,000 x 120 x 29.6) = 0.0502 kg CO2e/tkm\ Total GHG emission intensity: 7,359,812 / (34,000 x 120 x 29.6) = 0.0610 kg CO2e/tkm\ \ GHG emission intensities for the cargo with the HGVs:\ Energy production GHG emission intensity: 1,303,300 / (34,000 x 120 x 15.6) = 0.0205kg CO2e/tkm\ Operational GHG emission intensity: 6,056,512 / (34,000 x 120 x 15.6) = 0.0952 kg CO2e/tkm\ Total GHG emission intensity: 7,359,812 / (34,000 x 120 x 15.6) = 0.1156 kg CO2e/tkm\ \ * * *\ \ Table 13\ Emission factors used for hub calculation examples\ \ | Energy carrier(Region) | TTW(HEO) | WTT(HEEP) | Total | Source |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Electricity(Germany) | - | 0.44kgCO2e/kWh | 0.44kgCO2e/kWh | EcoTransITWorld24 |\ | Diesel(Europe) | 2.68kgCO2e/l | 0.80kgCO2e/l | 3.48kgCO2e/l | ecoinvent3.9.1cut-off |\ | Diesel,5% biodiesel blend(Europe) | 2.54kgCO2e/l | 0.82kgCO2e/l | 3.36kgCO2e/l | Own calculation based on ecoinvent3.9.1cut-off andETW2022EU Mix,amended |\ | Natural gas(Europe) | 0.21kgCO2e/kWh | 0.08kgCO2e/kWh | 0.29kgCO2e/kWh | ecoinvent3.9.1cut-off |\ \ 5. Calculation of GHG Emissions\ from Hub Operations\ \ The following calculation examples start from\ the basic use case, and we assume that access\ is given to relevant GHG activity data (electricity\ use, fuel consumption etc.), so that the average\ emission intensity value can be calculated.\ In our example we calculate two different\ scenarios:\ • HOC with one hub and one average emission\ \ scenarios:\ • HOC with one hub and one average emission\ intensity value\ • HOC with one hub and two emission\ \ • HOC with one hub and two emission\ intensity values\ \ Table 14\ Data for example: HOC with one hub and one average emission intensity value\ \ This example refers to a container terminal in\ Germany, at which dry and reefer containers\ are handled. Only the total annual hub activity is\ known (4,250,000 t). Therefore, it is possible to\ derive one average emission factor.\ \ Table 13 gives you an overview of the emission\ factors we used for our example.\ \ | Emission caused by... | GHG activity data on... | | GHG emissions per activity |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Handling containers | Electricity | 1,100,000kWh | 484,000kgCO2e |\ | Diesel | 75,000l | 261,000kgCO2e | |\ | Diesel, 5% biodiesel blend | 30,000l | 100,800kgCO2e | |\ | General processes | Natural gas | 32,000kWh | 9,319kgCO2e |\ | Electricity | 160,000kWh | 70,400kgCO2e | |\ | Reefer station | Electricity | 150,000kWh | 66,000kgCO2e |\ | Total GHG emissions of the HOC | | 991,519kgCO2e | |\ \ For simplification, only the multiplication of\ GHG activity data and the total GHG emission\ factor is shown in this example. However, for\ recommend using the default values for logistics further disaggregation the specific emissions\ factors for HOC (TTW) and HEEP (WTT) can also\ be used.\ \ When dividing the total GHG emissions of the\ HOC by the total annual hub activity, the result is\ an average GHG emission intensity value for the\ hub operations.\ \ Due to the lack of data in finer granularity, a\ further breakdown of the hub activity is not\ possible. Therefore, in such a case of average\ emission intensity values, emissions of the\ ambient freight are somewhat overestimated,\ and emissions of refrigerated freight are\ underestimated. In such a case, it is advisable to\ collect further data at finer granularity to support\ a more differentiated analysis of the GHG\ \ Average GHG emission intensity value:\ 991,519 kg CO e / 4,250,000 t = 0.23 CO e/t\ 2 2\ \ * * *\ \ 5.2 Freight transport hub - HOC with one hub\ and two emission intensity values\ \ The second scenario refers again to the same\ container terminal in Germany, but now the\ difference is that more detailed data on the\ annual hub activities is available. The container\ terminal handles dry (4,200,000 t) and reefer\ (50,000 t) containers.\ \ Two emission intensity values can be identified\ in this situation: one for the hub operations of\ ambient freight and one for hub operations of\ refrigerated freight. Therefore, a distinction is\ made between processes that are relevant to all\ \ types of freight (handing containers and\ general processes summarized as GHG\ emissions “unspecified group”) and those that\ are only necessary for refrigerated freight (reefer\ station summarized as GHG emissions for\ “refrigerated freight”) or that are only necessary\ for ambient freight.\ \ For simplification, only the multiplication of\ GHG activity data and the total GHG emission\ factor is shown in this example. Nevertheless,\ for further disaggregation the specific emissions\ factors for HEO (TTW) and HEEP (WTT) can\ also be used.\ \ Table 15\ Data for example: HOC with one hub and two emission intensity values\ \ | Emission caused by... | GHG activity data on... | | GHG emissions per activity |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Handling containers | Electricity | 1,100,000kWh | 484,000kgCO2e |\ | Diesel | 75,000l | 261,000kgCO2e | |\ | Diesel,5% biodiesel blend | 30,000l | 100,800kgCO2e | |\ | General processes | Natural gas | 32,000kWh | 9,319kgCO2e |\ | Electricity | 160,000kWh | 70,400kgCO2e | |\ | | GHG emissions“unspecified group”of theHOC | | 925,519kgCO2e |\ | Reefer station | Electricity | 150,000kWh | 66,000kgCO2e |\ | GHG emissions specific group“refrigerated freight”of theHOC | | | 66,000kgCO2e |\ | Total GHG emissions of theHOC | | | 991,519kgCO2e |\ \ The emissions resulting from handling\ containers and general processes applicable to\ both groups of freight, ambient and refrigerated\ freight (GHG emissions “general”) can be\ calculated as follows:\ \ GHG emission intensity “general”:\ 925,519 kg CO2e / 4,250,000 t =\ 0.218 kg CO2e/t\ \ The emissions of the reefer station (GHG\ for further disaggregation the specific emissions emissions “refrigerated freight”) are only\ associated with the hub operation activity of\ 50,000 t refrigerated weight and can therefore\ be calculated as follows:\ \ Again, these HOC GHG emission intensity\ values can be provided to supply chain\ customers to apply to their own transport\ chains or TCEs respectively. For example,\ to calculate a client-specific transfer of\ containerized dry goods freight (87 tonnes), the\ amount of freight must be multiplied by the GHG\ intensity value for ambient freight.\ \ GHG emission intensity “refrigerated freight”:\ 66,000 kg CO2e / 50,000 t = 1.32 kg CO2e/t\ \ Client specific calculation for ambient freight:\ 87 t \* 0.218 kg CO2e/t = 19.0 kg CO2e\ \ Now the corresponding emission intensity\ values for handling of ambient freight and\ handling of refrigerated freight can be derived.\ As no specific, additional operations have been\ carried out for the ambient freight, the GHG\ emission intensity value is equal to the GHG\ emission intensity “general”.\ \ In the same way, the emissions can be\ calculated for 100 tonnes of refrigerated freight\ using the corresponding GHG emissions\ intensity value for refrigerated freight:\ \ For refrigerated freight the GHG emission\ intensity value is the sum of the GHG emission\ intensity for “general” plus the GHG emission\ intensity for “refrigerated freight”.\ \ Client specific calculation for refrigerated freight:\ 100 t \* 1.54 kg CO e/t = 154 kg CO e\ 2 2\ \ * * *\ \ ## References\ \ **3**\ \ 01. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC(2023): AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023; on [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/) ; last accessed 24/09/2024\ 02. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC (2014): AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014; on [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/) ; last accessed 24/09/2024\ 03. [https://ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/3.9.1/cutoff/search](https://ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/3.9.1/cutoff/search)\ 04. [www.ifeu.de](http://www.ifeu.de/), Infras & Fraunhofer EcoTransIT World: Environmental Methodology and Data; on [https://www.ecotransit.org/en/](https://www.ecotransit.org/en/) ; last accessed 30/09/2024\ 05. CORSIA 2019: CORSIA supporting document: CORSIA Eligible Fuels – Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. 2019\ 06. JEC 2020: Prussi, M., Yugo, M., De Prada, L., Padella, M., Edwards, R., Lonza, L. JEC Well-to-Tank report v5,EUR 30269 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978 92 76-19926-7, doi: 10 .2760/ 959137, JRC119036 [https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/welcome-jec-website/jec-publications/jec-version-5-2020\_en](https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/welcome-jec-website/jec-publications/jec-version-5-2020_en) ; last accessed 30/09/2024\ 07. European Commission Fuel EU Maritime Annex COM(2021) 562 final, July 2021\ 08. REDII (2018): Renewable Energy – Recast to 2030 (RED II); on [https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/welcome-jec-website/reference-regulatory-framework/renewable-energy-recast-2030-red-ii\_en](https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/welcome-jec-website/reference-regulatory-framework/renewable-energy-recast-2030-red-ii_en) ; last viewed 30/09/20249. Argonne National Laboratory (2022): The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model (GREET); on [https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet](https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet) ; last accessed 23/03/2023\ 09. Argonne National Laboratory (2023): The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model (GREET); on [https://greet.anl.gov/index.php](https://greet.anl.gov/index.php); last accessed 12/09/2024\ 10. US EPA eGRID 2022 Summary Tables on: [https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-01/egrid2022\_summary\_tables.pdf](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-01/egrid2022_summary_tables.pdf) ; last accessed 12/09/2024\ 11. BioEm project report; on: [https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/aktualisierung-der-eingangsdaten-emissionsbilanzen](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/aktualisierung-der-eingangsdaten-emissionsbilanzen); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 12. ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Methodology Version 11 Methodology ICAO Carbon Calculator\_v11.1-2018.pdf ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 13. Base Carbone: [https://bilans-ges.ademe.fr/](https://bilans-ges.ademe.fr/)\ 14. GILA-German, Italian & Latin American consortium for resource efficient logistics hubs & transport -Fraunhofer IML; on [https://www.iml.fraunhofer.de/gila](https://www.iml.fraunhofer.de/gila) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 15. Dobers, K., Jarmer, J.-P. (2023): Guide for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting at Logistics Hubs. doi:10.24406/publica-2261\ 16. UIC Railway handbook 2017 ; on: [https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/handbook\_iea-uic\_2017\_web3.pdf](https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/handbook_iea-uic_2017_web3.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 17. International Energy Agency IEA: Annual GHG emission factors for World countries from electricity and heat generation; [https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/emissions-factors-2022](https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/emissions-factors-2022) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 18. EcoTransIT World: Environmental Methodology and Data Update 2024; on: [https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308\_Methodology\_Report\_Update\_2024.pdf](https://www.ecotransit.org/wp-content/uploads/20240308_Methodology_Report_Update_2024.pdf); last viewed 12/09/2024\ 19. SmartWay 2024 SmartWay Online Shipper Tool: Technical Documentation-U.S. Version 1.0 (Data Year 2023) ; last accessed 22/08/2024\ 20. Handbook of Emission Factors HBEFA [www.hbefa.net](http://www.hbefa.net/)\ 21. UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting: Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2022 - GOV.UK ( [www.gov.uk](http://www.gov.uk/)) ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 22. Network for Transport Measures: Network for Transport Measures\ 23. International Maritime Organisation IMO (2020): Fourth Greenhouse Gas Study 2020; ; last accessed 02/10/2024\ 24. Clean Cargo Working Group (2015). Clean Cargo Working Group Carbon Emissions Accounting Methodology. Clean\_Cargo\_Emissions\_Calculation\_Methods\_2015-06\_2.pdf (smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com)\ 25. ISO 14083:2023 Greenhouse gases — Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations (2023); [https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html](https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html) ; last accessed 25/09/2024\ 26. Schmied, M. (2017): Umweltorientierte Logistikstrategien – Beweggründe, Ansatzpunkte, Instrumente; Presentation at Hochschule für Technik Stutgart, 18/12/2017\ 27. US EPA Rail : SmartWay Rail Carrier Tools and Resources ; on [https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-rail-carrier-tools-and-resources](https://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway-rail-carrier-tools-and-resources); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 28. International Maritime Organisation IMO (2024): Resolution MEPC.391(81); 2024 Guidelines on Life Cycle GHG Intensity of Marine fuels on [https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.391(81](https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.391(81)).pdf; last accessed 12/09/2024\ 29. ifeu 2021: ifeu refinery model. [https://www.ifeu.de/en/project/modellierung-von-raffinerie-und-petrochemischer-industrie?sword\_list%5B0%5D=refinery&sword\_list%5B1%5D=model](https://www.ifeu.de/en/project/modellierung-von-raffinerie-und-petrochemischer-industrie?sword_list%5B0%5D=refinery&sword_list%5B1%5D=model)\ 30. China Default GHG Emission Values V1.0– Complementing GLEC Framework v3.0 (2024): [https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/GLEC3.0\_China\_Default\_GHG\_Emission\_Values\_V1.0.pdf](https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/GLEC3.0_China_Default_GHG_Emission_Values_V1.0.pdf); last accessed 12/09/2024\ 31. ⻄南交通⼤学交通运输与物流学院, 综合交通⼤数据应⽤技术国家⼯程实验室-智慧物流⼤数据应⽤ 技术实验室. Preliminary Investigation and Research on Freight Industry. 2019; [https://www.efchina.org/Attachments/Report/report-ctp-20201103/Preliminary-Investigation-and-research-on-freight-industry.pdf/view](https://www.efchina.org/Attachments/Report/report-ctp-20201103/Preliminary-Investigation-and-research-on-freight-industry.pdf/view); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 32. IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines: V2\_3\_Ch3\_Mobile\_Combustion.Pdf.; 2006. Accessed June 9, 2023. [https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2\_Volume2/V2\_3\_Ch3\_Mobile\_Combustion.pdf](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_3_Ch3_Mobile_Combustion.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 33. 陆上交通运输企业 温室⽓体排放核算⽅法与报告指南 （试⾏）. [https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/tz/201511/W020190905506438255108.pdf](https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/tz/201511/W020190905506438255108.pdf); last accessed 02/10/2024\ 34. NDRC. 报批稿《物流企业温室⽓体排放核算与报告要求).pdf. Published online 2023\ \ * * *\ \ ## References\ \ **3**\ \ 35. NDRC. 省级温室⽓体清单编制指南（试⾏). 2011; [http://www.cbcsd.org.cn/sjk/nengyuan/standard/home/20140113/download/shengjiwenshiqiti.pdf](http://www.cbcsd.org.cn/sjk/nengyuan/standard/home/20140113/download/shengjiwenshiqiti.pdf); last accessed: 02/10/2024\ 36. Smart Freight Centre. Measuring and Reporting the Carbon Footprint of Electric Freight Vehicle Operations: Whitepaper. 2024. [https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/240129\_EV\_Emissions\_reporting\_v3.0\_FINAL.pdf](https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/240129_EV_Emissions_reporting_v3.0_FINAL.pdf). ; last accessed: 02/10/2024\ 37. Scarlat, N., Prussi, M., & Padella, M. (2022). Quantification of the carbon intensity of electricity produced and used in Europe. Applied Energy, 305, 117901. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117901](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117901); last accessed” 02/10/2024\ 38. Moro, A., & Lonza, L. (2018). Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 64, 5–14. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.012); last accessed: 02/10/2024\ 39. Smart Freight Centre. (2019). Global Logistics Emissions Council Framework for Logistics Emissions Accounting and Reporting. Version 2.0.\ 40. IEA. (2023). CO2 Emissions in 2022.; [https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3c8fa115-35c4-4474-b237-1b00424c8844/CO2Emissionsin2022.pdf](https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3c8fa115-35c4-4474-b237-1b00424c8844/CO2Emissionsin2022.pdf); last accessed: 02/10/2024\ 41. CE Delft. (2022). Ketenemissies elektriciteit: Actualisatie elektriciteitsmix 2019. Rijkswaterstaat; Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaa; [https://ce.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CE\_](https://ce.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CE_) Delft\_210436\_Ketenemissies\_elektriciteit\_Def.pdf ; last accessed: 02/10/2024\ \ * * *\ \ ### Annexes\ \ #### Module 5 Calculating GHG transport and\ \ #### logistics emissions for the European Chemical Industry\ \ #### Annex unit\ \ **4**\ \ #### conversions\ \ #### List of abbreviations\ \ #### Glossary\ \ #### Version history\ \ _Click on each icon to go straight to the chapter_ _Click here to go back to Structure of the document page_\ \ * * *\ \ Module 5\ Calculating GHG transport and\ logistics emissions for the\ European Chemical Industry\ \ September, 2021, updated August 2023\ \ 1. Introduction\ \ The members of Cefic, representing the majority of the\ chemical industry in Europe, recognize the importance\ of reducing the overall environmental impact of freight\ transport. Hence, knowledge about the GHG emissions that\ result from the transport of goods within their supply chain,\ both inbound to their production plants and outbound to their\ customers, is important to them. These guidelines support\ them in gaining this knowledge, so enabling them to take\ steps to reduce their impact.\ \ Cefic and European Chemical Transport\ Association (ECTA), representing the\ specialist transport companies who work\ on behalf of the chemical producers,\ published a first guideline for the\ calculation of tank to wheel GHG emissions\ from freight transport operations applicable\ to the European chemical sector in March\ 2011\. Since then there have been many\ developments in the field of GHG emission\ accounting, both in general and specifically\ for freight transport operations, including\ the EN16258 standard published in 2012,\ the GLEC Framework first published in\ 2016 and ISO 14083 published in 2023.\ A particular change worth noting is that\ the well-to-tank (WTT) emission factors\ of most fossil fuels have increased\ significantly since the September 2021\ version of this guide. More information on\ \ Nonetheless, the fundamentals of the\ process remain the same:\ calculation of tank to wheel GHG emissions\ \ used for the transport service in question\ • Convert the fuel use to a well-to-wheel\ (WTW) GHG emission value, expressed\ as mass of CO2e\ • Relate the GHG emissions, including\ those from cleaning and warehousing,\ to the transport and logistics activity,\ expressed in tonne-kilometers, provided\ by the service\ • Report both the total GHG emissions and\ \ * * *\ \ This process is set out in more detail Section 1,\ Chapters 1-4 of the GLEC Framework.\ \ This updated report reflects changes that have\ occurred in the past 12 years and represents\ an opportunity for the sector to respond to\ increasing pressure from investors, legislation\ and customers to reduce GHG emissions from\ freight transport activities in particular, given\ its classification as a “hard to abate” sector.\ \ Implementing this guidance will show that\ the sector is adopting current best practice,\ adapted specifically for the chemical industry,\ and is preparing itself for the decarbonization\ challenge that will become increasingly\ apparent in the coming years.\ \ The scope of the GHG emission calculation\ covered in this report includes the transport\ and logistics activities directly related to the\ chemical industry supply chain. The primary\ focus is the transport and logistics operations\ the companies are contractually responsible\ for, which are primarily the transport of finished\ goods to their customers. Estimates may\ also be made for transport operations within\ the supply chain that are the responsibility of\ other entities, for example inbound transport\ of raw materials, although any such estimates\ will inevitably be subject to greater uncertainty\ due to lack of knowledge of all parameters\ and hence greater reliance on estimation\ and assumptions. Therefore, it is highly\ recommended to request transport emission\ data to be included in the emission reporting of\ the contracting party.\ \ The activities include:\ • The transport itself, including associated\ \ • The transport itself, including associated\ vehicle repositioning needed to fulfil\ the service\ • The handling of goods and short-term\ \ • The handling of goods and short-term\ storage at logistics sites, including energy use\ associated with movement of goods within a\ logistics site or warehouse and the operation\ of the storage or handling facility\ • Tank cleaning operations required to make\ \ • Tank cleaning operations required to make\ vehicles available for their use in chemical\ transport\ • Temperature control (whether heating or\ \ transport\ • Temperature control (whether heating or\ cooling) required for conditioning of the\ product during the transport chain\ \ Items specifically excluded are:\ • Activities associated with intermediate\ \ • Activities associated with intermediate\ processing of a product, including where its\ nature is fundamentally changed\ • Administrative functions of the transport\ \ • Administrative functions of the transport\ company, even if they are co-located at a\ logistics site\ • Maintenance of site or vehicles\ \ • Section 2 sets out some of the specific\ characteristics of chemical industry logistics\ operations that influence the way that\ GHG emissions are calculated as well as the\ resulting impacts.\ • Section 3 sets out typical or representative\ \ • Maintenance of site or vehicles\ • Vehicle or transport infrastructure\ \ The report is structured as follows:\ \ for, which are primarily the transport of finished • Maintenance of site or vehicles\ • Vehicle or transport infrastructure\ \ • Section 4 provides guidance for carriers\ and logistics service providers (LSPs) when it\ comes to interpreting these guidelines.\ • Section 5 provides guidance for chemical\ \ comes to interpreting these guidelines.\ • Section 5 provides guidance for chemical\ companies when it comes to implementing\ the GLEC Framework and the influence of\ these industry-specific guidelines.\ • Section 6 acknowledges that knowledge\ \ chemical transport operations. The result is\ a more detailed and specific set of transport\ categories than the general set defined in the\ main body of the GLEC Framework.\ \ 2.1 Nature of the cargo transported\ \ This section describes specific characteristics\ of chemical industry transport and logistics\ operations that are not set out in detail in the\ existing GLEC Framework. The approach\ in terms of core methodology is unaffected,\ i.e., identify all the individual elements of the\ transport chain, including any associated\ empty running, and then collect the information\ necessary to calculate the emissions.\ \ The cargo transported for the chemical industry\ is a mixture of solids, liquids and gases that are\ either ingredients for or the result of chemical\ processes managed by the chemical industry.\ \ Consignment sizes tend to be greater than in\ the wider transport sector, which leads to a\ greater incidence of bulk transportation, the\ potential for higher payloads, especially when\ expressed in terms of cargo mass, and a\ greater potential for use of intermodal solutions\ and high-capacity modes such as rail, inland\ waterway and sea transport.\ \ 2. Chemical industry specifics\ \ * * *\ \ 2.2 Shared transport – definitions and use\ \ Terminology can vary within the freight\ transport sector as a whole and even within a\ segment such as chemical transportation. The\ following terms have been used to establish the\ chemical sector default emission intensities:\ \ • Full truckload (FTL): a chemical company\ has enough product for a consignment to fill\ a vehicle, by weight or other dimension, close\ to the vehicle’s legal limits and that vehicle\ travels from a single point of origin to a single\ destination to deliver the single consignment.\ \ • Less than truckload (LTL): a chemical\ company has one or more consignments\ that individually are not big enough to fill a\ vehicle, by weight or other dimension, to the\ vehicle’s legal limits. An approximate\ boundary of 15 tonnes, i.e. ± 60% load by\ mass, has been used to differentiate full and\ less than truckload. LTL transport can be split\ into many different subcategories with widely\ differing characteristics. For the purposes\ of this document the following two categories\ have been used:\ • Partial load: a single LTL consignment, which\ \ other products.\ • Groupage: multiple LTL consignments,\ potentially originating from different\ chemical companies and different origins\ are consolidated by an LSP to achieve a main\ haul transport with higher load factor than\ would otherwise be the case. The\ \ consolidated consignments may be delivered\ to one or several end destinations.\ Consignment size, operating pattern, overall\ load factor can all vary considerably within\ this broad category of transport.\ \ The use of groupage transport is\ commonplace, particularly for packed goods.\ \ The nature of the cargo may require specialist\ transport providers who are used to handling,\ or even licensed to handle, cargos with specific\ properties. The benefit of groupage services\ from a GHG emission perspective is that the\ transport provider should be able to achieve\ greater overall efficiency by carrying several\ consignments from different providers in one\ trip, so maximizing load factors and minimizing\ empty running. Sharing of operational\ information and actual GHG emission\ performance of groupage transport has been\ relatively uncommon; however, with the\ increased focus on transparency and reduction\ of GHG emissions we expect that may change\ in the future. The work required of the transport\ company should not be any greater than for\ dedicated transport, because all customers\ would be expected to share a network average\ emission intensity that reflects the overall\ benefit of the shared transport operation and\ the associated improved efficiency.\ \ 2.3 Dedicated transport\ \ equipment, cargos and cleaning requirements.\ \ This could lead to an increased incidence of\ empty running. Hence there is a trade-off\ between dedicated transport contracts and a\ lower overall system efficiency with higher GHG\ emissions.\ \ This places a responsibility on chemical\ companies and their transport providers to\ investigate options to reduce the incidence\ of company-specific dedicated transport\ wherever the business model will allow it. For\ example, allowing transport of compatible\ loads or using cleaning facilities close to the\ point of unloading that would allow a backload\ would both avoid an empty return trip to base\ and improve overall transport system efficiency.\ \ Data collected by ECTA suggested that\ there are significant variations reported in\ terms of average load and particularly empty\ running from transport operator to transport\ operator. Unfortunately, it has not been\ possible to isolate the nature of the transport\ operation to establish whether dedicated\ transport contracts were contributing to this\ variation. The assumption is that dedicated\ transport would result in higher level of empty\ running than for shared transport. However,\ it is likely that there is also a variation in the\ operating practices between differing transport\ companies which is a clear reason to advocate\ for the use of primary data as the basis for\ GHG calculations.\ \ * * *\ \ As mentioned previously, the cargo tends to be\ relatively dense and consignments are larger,\ leading to payloads that are typically much\ closer to vehicle payload limits than the overall\ sector average. Nonetheless, consultation\ with individual chemical companies did\ reveal significant variations from company to\ company, around a relatively high average\ payload figure.\ \ 2.4 Payloads\ \ The variation from company to company\ emphasizes the importance of using primary\ data for the calculation of emissions at a\ company or even better at product level, and of\ monitoring factors such as the load factor and\ extent of empty running within a supply chain\ \ Although high payload does slightly increase\ vehicle fuel consumption and emissions when\ expressed on a per vehicle kilometer basis, the\ benefit of transporting more cargo in a single\ trip significantly outweighs this effect and leads\ to a much lower emission intensity, expressed\ in emissions per unit of transport activity (mass\ CO2e / tonne km).\ \ It is through simple steps like these that\ short-term emission reductions can be easily\ achieved at relatively low cost and to the\ benefit of all parties involved and wider society.\ \ The typical payloads used in generating the\ road transport default GHG emission intensities\ for chemical transport are as follows:\ \ Table 1\ Typical payloads used in generating default emission intensities\ \ | Market segment | Data source | Value(tonnes) |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Overall sector average | Inferred from more detailed segments below | 18 |\ | Packed goods transport | | |\ | Packed goods average | Inferred from more detailed segments below | 15 |\ | Packed goods:FTL | Cefic project member data; confirmed ECTA member survey | 21 |\ | Packed goods:part load | Cefic project member data | 8 |\ | Packed goods:groupage | ECTA secretariat | 15 |\ | Bulk transport | | |\ | Bulk goods average | ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data | 22 |\ | Bulk goods:tank truck | ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data | 21 |\ | Bulk goods:hopper/silo | ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data | 26 |\ | Bulk goods: tank container | ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data | 24 |\ \ * * *\ \ 2.5 Empty running\ \ Minimizing the extent of empty running is a way\ for all parties with an interest in freight transport\ to improve efficiency. At the same time a\ certain level of empty running is inevitable,\ especially for FTL transport, as it is unlikely that\ the next consignment will always be available\ at the point of unloading the previous one.\ \ Groupage allows an LSP to minimize empty\ running within the constraints of their network\ and the amount of business they are able to\ generate. The extent of empty running is an\ important influencing factor on GHG emission\ intensities. The values in Table 2 have been\ used in this document.\ \ It is through simple steps like these that\ short-term emission reductions can be easily\ achieved at relatively low cost and to the\ benefit of all parties involved and wider society.\ \ 2.6 Cleaning operations\ \ The typical payloads used in generating the\ road transport default GHG emission intensities\ for chemical transport are show in Table 1.\ \ Table 2\ Typical empty running values used in generating default emission intensities\ \ | Market segment | Data source | Value% of total distance |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Overall sector average | Inferred from more detailed segments below | 22 |\ | Packed goods transport | | |\ | Packed goods average | Inferred from more detailed segments below | 22 |\ | Packed goods:FTL | ECTA member survey | 22 |\ | Packed goods:part load | ECTA member survey | 22 |\ | Packed goods:groupage | GLEC LTL average | 17 |\ | Bulk transport | | |\ | Bulk goods average | Inferred from more detailed segments below | 22 |\ | Bulk goods:tank truck | ECTA member survey | 19 |\ | Bulk goods:hopper/silo | ECTA member survey | 22 |\ | Bulk goods: tank container | ECTA member survey(assumed same as tank truck) | 19 |\ \ operations conducted by a vehicle to avoid\ cross contamination. The required cleaning\ operations are carried out to industry standards\ at facilities that may or may not be present\ at, or close to, the location where a particular\ cargo is unloaded or the next cargo is to\ be loaded. If no cleaning station is present\ the result may be additional empty running\ between point of unloading and the next\ loaded journey. In extreme cases, if a cleaning\ facility is not available in the locality of the\ unloading location, this may necessitate a\ return to base for cleaning before the next\ journey can be undertaken.\ \ information may support emission reduction\ through re-evaluating options for compatible\ loads, potentially moving away from dedicated\ company transport.\ \ Because the choice of cleaning versus\ dedicated transport is part of the operational\ model of the transport provider, and may\ change depending on volumes and business\ developments, it is important for the chemical\ company to ensure the service provider\ considers this option. Given high the variability\ of cleaning emissions it is recommended that\ the provider of the cleaning operations uses\ a specific value for the GHG emission per\ cleaning operation for their specific situation,\ wherever possible. Further guidance can be\ found at: [https://www.eftco.org/safe-cleaning/](https://www.eftco.org/safe-cleaning/)\ emission-guideline.\ \ From a GHG calculation methodology\ perspective, the use of tank containers to\ transport fluids is not per se a significant\ deviation from other truck body types, i.e., the\ standard trailer used in generic road transport\ calculations. What is important to note is that,\ as for all other transport, it is the net weight of\ the load that should be used when calculating\ the transport activity, i.e. excluding the weight\ of the container. If there is any uncertainty,\ please confirm with the carrier that the weight\ of the container has not been included in the\ calculation of the GHG emission intensity.\ \ * * *\ \ 2.8 Pipeline transport\ \ Pipeline transport is a form of transport that\ is highly specific to the chemical sector and\ is not currently reflected in the main body of\ the GLEC Framework, except in passing in the\ introduction. Hence, information for pipeline\ transport has been developed specifically for\ this report. This has highlighted that, although\ information is known to pipeline operators, until\ now sharing and calculation of GHG emissions\ from this transport mode has been limited.\ \ • Pipeline length\ • Pipeline diameter\ \ • Pipeline diameter\ • Nature of the product (liquid or gas)\ • Viscosity of the product\ \ • Viscosity of the product\ • Pressure within the pipeline system, which\ \ Some products, particularly gases, may\ come out of the production plant in a highly\ pressurized form. If that pressure can be\ captured then the product may, in some cases,\ flow due to the original pressurization without\ requiring extra energy for transportation. In\ order to ensure consistency with the overall\ project scope, and boundaries used for the\ emissions for production plants and logistics\ sites, the following boundaries were agreed:\ \ • Do not include the energy used by pumps\ “within the boundaries of a production site”\ meaning that only the energy used by pumps\ when the product is in transit contribute to the\ pipeline transport emissions\ \ • If the product is already in transit, and\ being transferred from a ship or barge, any\ pumps on board the ship or barge would be\ accounted for by the ship, whereas any pumps\ linked to the pipeline would be included in the\ pipeline emissions\ \ This is shown in figure 1.\ \ Figure 1\ Where to include pumping station energy use and emissions\ \ Where to include pumping station energy use and emissions\ \ 3. Impact of chemical industry\ specifics on default values\ \ 3.1 Sector-specific TOCs\ \ This section presents the result of the\ discussions within the project group on how\ the individual different TOCs should be set out\ on a mode-by-mode basis and the resulting\ default GHG emission intensities.\ \ Similar to the presentation of default values\ in the main body of the GLEC Framework,\ defaults are presented in a hierarchy of three\ levels, starting from a highly generic situation\ where the chemical company knows little\ about the consignment or how it is transported,\ through a situation of partial knowledge\ through to a more detailed knowledge of the\ goods and the detailed means of transport.\ \ Through this progression the assumptions\ become more specific to the transport in\ question and the values more representative of\ the actual transport.\ \ All emission intensities are presented as WTW\ values in g CO2e/tkm.\ \ * * *\ \ Table 3\ Road transport TOC characteristics\ \ Module 5\ Calculating GHG transport\ and logistics emissions for the\ European Chemical Industry\ \ | Transport operation category | | Empty running (% of total distance) | Typical load (tonnes) | Emission intensity(gCO2e/t-km) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | | |\ | Level 1 | | | | | | |\ | | Overall sector average | 22 | 18 | 21 | 66 | 87 |\ | Packed goods-Level 2 | | | | | | |\ | | Average, ambient | 22 | 15 | 24 | 76 | 100 |\ | Average, temperature controlled | 22 | 15 | 27 | 85 | 112 | |\ | Packed goods-Level 3 | | | | | | |\ | FTL | Ambient | 22 | 21 | 19 | 58 | 77 |\ | Temperature controlled | 22 | 21 | 21 | 65 | 86 | |\ | Partial load | Ambient | 22 | 8 | 41 | 127 | 168 |\ | Temperature controlled | 22 | 8 | 46 | 142 | 188 | |\ | Groupage | Ambient | 17 | 15 | 23 | 72 | 95 |\ | Temperature controlled | 17 | 15 | 26 | 80 | 106 | |\ | Bulk goods-Level 2 | | | | | | |\ | | Average, ambient | 22 | 22 | 18 | 57 | 75 |\ | Average, temperature controlled | 22 | 22 | 20 | 64 | 84 | |\ | Bulk goods-Level 3 | | | | | | |\ | Tank truck | Ambient | 19 | 21 | 18 | 57 | 75 |\ | Temperature controlled | 19 | 21 | 20 | 64 | 84 | |\ | Dedicated, ambient | 50 | 21 | 27 | 82 | 109 | |\ | Dedicated, temperature controlled | 50 | 21 | 30 | 92 | 122 | |\ | Hopper/silo | Ambient | 22 | 26 | 16 | 51 | 67 |\ | Temperature controlled | 22 | 26 | 18 | 57 | 75 | |\ | Dedicated, ambient | 50 | 26 | 22 | 70 | 92 | |\ | Dedicated, temperature controlled | 50 | 26 | 25 | 78 | 103 | |\ | Tank container | Ambient | 19 | 24 | 17 | 52 | 69 |\ | Temperature controlled | 19 | 24 | 19 | 58 | 77 | |\ | Dedicated, ambient | 50 | 24 | 24 | 74 | 98 | |\ | Dedicated, temperature controlled | 50 | 24 | 27 | 83 | 110 | |\ \ 3.2 Road transport\ \ The default road transport GHG emission\ intensities are calculated on the basis of using\ vehicles in the class “articulated truck up to 40\ tonne gross vehicle weight” using “Diesel, 5%\ biodiesel blend,” which industry data shows to\ be the predominant vehicle class.\ \ The values for dedicated transport are at the\ extreme, conservative end of the possible\ range with 50% empty running, assuming\ dedicated transport at the company level. For\ a more accurate value, specific to your service,\ please consult with your service provider.\ \ For non-dedicated transport where a cleaning\ operation is required to facilitate operation with\ a lower level of empty running as compared to\ returning to base for cleaning then an additional\ 86.6 kg CO2e per cleaning operation should be\ added (see section 3.10).\ \ * * *\ \ Notes:\ Single wagon rail transport includes allowance\ for extra short distance transport to origin\ main haul site to assemble full train and from\ destination site for final distribution.\ \ Electric traction energy is assumed only for\ main haul traction. Any shunting within site\ \ Notes:\ Single wagon rail transport includes allowance\ \ 3.3 Rail transport\ \ or short distance transport to/from site to\ assemble single wagon trains is assumed to be\ by diesel traction.\ \ Electric main haul assumes EU average\ electricity factor of 356 g CO2e/kWh. Use of\ individual country mixes may give significantly\ different values, especially in countries with a\ highly decarbonized electricity supply.\ \ 3.4 Inland waterways transport\ \ Inland waterways transport is well-suited to the\ generally larger consignments that are typical of\ the chemical sector and so the inland waterway\ default intensities in the main GLEC Framework\ are directly applicable to the chemical sector\ as follows:\ \ Table 4\ Rail transport TOC characteristics\ \ | Transport operation category | Empty running (% of total distance) | Load factor(%) | Traction energy | WTW GHG emission intensity(g CO2e/tkm) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Level 1 | | | | |\ | Overall sector average | 33 | 40 | Average | 23 |\ | Level 2：Container train (intermodal) | | | | |\ | Average | 17 | 50 | Average | 17 |\ | Diesel train | 17 | 50 | Diesel | 28 |\ | Electric train | 17 | 50 | Electric | 10 |\ | Level 2：Blocktrain(RTC) | | | | |\ | Average | 50 | 100 | Average | 16 |\ | Diesel train | 50 | 100 | Diesel | 26 |\ | Electric train | 50 | 100 | Electric | 10 |\ | Level 2：Single Wagon train(RTC) | | | | |\ | Average | 50 | 100 | Average | 22 |\ | Diesel train | 50 | 100 | Diesel | 36 |\ | Electric train | 50 | 100 | Electric | 14 |\ \ Table 5\ Inland Waterway TOC characteristics\ \ | Transport operation category | Overall utilization(%) | GHG emission intensity(gCO2e/tkm) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | |\ | Bulk tanker(average) | 65 | 5.7 | 19 | 24.7 |\ | Tanker barge(liquid) | 65 | 5.7 | 19 | 24.7 |\ | Tanker barge(gas) | 65 | 5.7 | 19 | 24.7 |\ | Container vessel(average) | 75 | 6.8 | 22.5 | 29.3 |\ | Container vessel110m | 75 | 6.8 | 22.5 | 29.3 |\ | Container vessel135m | 75 | 5.2 | 17.4 | 22.6 |\ | Dry barge(average) | 50 | 4.9 | 16.74 | 21.4 |\ \ * * *\ \ 3.5 Short and deep sea transport\ \ The framing of international sea transport,\ whether deep sea or short sea (coastal)\ shipping is currently set by the International\ Maritime Organisation (IMO) 4th GHG Study,1\ which focuses on categorization of vessels by\ general type size categories. This approach\ has been used to provide short sea and deep\ sea shipping values for chemical tankers, gas\ tankers and general cargo. The values are\ based on the median fuel consumption for\ each size category with the addition of 10%\ of the range between lower and upper quartile\ values to avoid a risk of underestimation and\ adhere to the principle of taking a cautious\ approach to the use of default GHG emission\ intensities. Although shown in the same table\ below it is worth noting that short sea shipping\ within Europe is likely to be performed by\ the smaller vessel sizes whereas deep sea\ transport will more likely use the larger\ vessel sizes.\ \ Care should be taken when calculating\ emissions from sea transport that distances are\ converted from nautical miles to kilometers to\ avoid systematic errors.\ \ Table 6\ Sea Transport TOC characteristics\ \ | Vessel category | Overall utilization(%) | | GHG emission intensity(gCO2e/tkm) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | Chemical tanker | 0-4999 | dwt | 9.3 | 49.6 | 58.9 |\ | 5000-9999 | dwt | 4.1 | 22.0 | 26.1 | |\ | 10000-19999 | dwt | 2.8 | 15.0 | 17.8 | |\ | 20000-39999 | dwt | 1.7 | 9.1 | 10.9 | |\ | 40000-+ | dwt | 1.3 | 7.0 | 8.3 | |\ | General cargo | 0-4999 | dwt | 4.1 | 21.7 | 25.8 |\ | 5000-9999 | dwt | 3.3 | 17.5 | 20.8 | |\ | 10000-19999 | dwt | 2.9 | 15.6 | 18.5 | |\ | 20000-+ | dwt | 1.5 | 8.1 | 9.6 | |\ | Gas tanker | 0-49999 | m3 | 7.3 | 39.0 | 46.3 |\ | 50000-99999 | m3 | 2.1 | 11.3 | 13.4 | |\ | 100000-199999 | m3 | 1.7 | 8.9 | 10.6 | |\ | 200000-+ | m3 | 1.8 | 9.4 | 11.2 | |\ \ dwt = deadweight tonnes\ \ * * *\ \ 3.5.1 Sea container transport\ \ The latest data from the Clean Cargo initiative\ has been used for containerized shipping.\ \ Clean Cargo provides industry average data on\ a trade lane basis and this has been converted\ to a per tonne kilometer basis using indicative\ payload values for ISO tank, 20’ and 40’\ containers.\ \ Table 7\ Sea container transport TOC characteristics\ \ | Transport operation category | | Temperature condition | GHG emission intensity(gCO2e/tkm) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | Level1 | | | | | |\ | Sector Average | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.5 | 2.6 | 3 |\ | Temp controlled | 0.9 | 5.2 | 6.2 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.5 | 2.8 | 3.3 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1 | 5.8 | 6.8 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 0.8 | 4.6 | 5.4 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.7 | 9.4 | 11.1 | | |\ | Level2 | | | | | |\ | Intra NW Europe | ISO Tank | Ambient | 1 | 5.7 | 6.7 |\ | Temp controlled | 1.7 | 9.5 | 11.2 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 1.1 | 6.3 | 7.4 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.9 | 10.5 | 12.3 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 1.8 | 10.2 | 12.1 | |\ | Temp controlled | 3 | 17 | 20.1 | | |\ | Intra Mediterranean | ISO Tank | Ambient | 1 | 5.5 | 6.5 |\ | Temp controlled | 1.7 | 9.7 | 11.4 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 1.1 | 6.1 | 7.2 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.9 | 10.7 | 12.6 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 1.8 | 10 | 11.8 | |\ | Temp controlled | 3.1 | 17.4 | 20.5 | | |\ \ | Transport operation category | | Temperature condition | GHG emission intensity(gCO2e/tkm) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | NW Europe-Mediterranean | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.5 | 2.6 | 3.1 |\ | Temp controlled | 0.9 | 5.3 | 6.2 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.5 | 2.9 | 3.4 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1 | 5.8 | 8.1 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 0.9 | 6 | 6.9 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.7 | 9.5 | 11.2 | | |\ | NW Europe-Asia | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.8 |\ | Temp controlled | 0.7 | 4.1 | 4.8 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.3 | 1.7 | 2 | |\ | Temp controlled | 0.8 | 4.5 | 5.3 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 0.5 | 2.8 | 3.3 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.3 | 7.3 | 8.6 | | |\ | NW Europe-Africa | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.6 | 3.6 | 4.2 |\ | Temp controlled | 1.2 | 6.6 | 7.8 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.7 | 4 | 4.7 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.3 | 7.3 | 8.6 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 1.2 | 6.5 | 7.6 | |\ | Temp controlled | 2.1 | 11.9 | 14 | | |\ \ Continued on next page\ \ * * *\ \ Table 8\ Sea container transport TOC characteristics (continued)\ \ | Transport operation category | | Temperature condition | GHG emission intensity(gCO2e/tkm) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | NW Europe-South & Central America | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.5 | 2.9 | 3.4 |\ | Temp controlled | 1 | 5.6 | 6.6 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.6 | 3.2 | 3.8 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.1 | 6.2 | 7.3 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 0.9 | 5.2 | 6.1 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.8 | 10 | 11.8 | | |\ | NW Europe-Middle East/India | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.4 | 2.2 | 2.6 |\ | Temp controlled | 0.9 | 4.9 | 5.8 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.4 | 2.4 | 2.9 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1 | 5.4 | 6.4 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 0.7 | 4 | 4.7 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.6 | 8.8 | 10.3 | | |\ | NW Europe-Oceania | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.6 | 3.2 | 3.7 |\ | Temp controlled | 1 | 5.6 | 6.6 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.6 | 3.5 | 4.1 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.1 | 6.2 | 7.3 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 1 | 5.7 | 6.7 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.8 | 10.1 | 11.9 | | |\ \ | Transport operation category | | Temperature condition | GHG emission intensity(gCO2e/tkm) | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | WTT | TTW | WTW | | | |\ | NW Europe- North America East Coast/Gulf | ISO Tank | Ambient | 0.6 | 3.1 | 3.7 |\ | Temp controlled | 1 | 5.8 | 6.8 | | |\ | 20' | Ambient | 0.6 | 3.5 | 4.1 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.1 | 6.4 | 7.5 | | |\ | 40' | Ambient | 1 | 5.7 | 6.7 | |\ | Temp controlled | 1.9 | 10.4 | 12.3 | | |\ \ * * *\ \ 3.6 Air transport\ \ Air transport is a relatively uncommon mode of\ transport for the chemical sector; hence, the\ guidance is to use the general values specified\ in the GLEC Framework.\ \ 3.7 Pipeline transport\ \ The current data available suggests that the\ characteristics and performance of pipelines is\ highly variable making it difficult to represent\ reliably using a default GHG emission\ intensity.\ \ As many pipelines are owned by chemical\ companies, it is expected that emissions\ can easily be calculated from the energy\ consumption available to the pipeline owner,\ as follows (see also section 2.8):\ \ Total emissions = electricity consumption\ outside site boundaries x electricity emission\ factor (country specific, or EU average of 349\ kgCO2e/kWh) where the total tonne km = total\ tonnes transported in the latest year multiplied\ by the length of pipeline in km.\ \ Table 9\ Intermodal transport TOC characteristics\ \ | Main Carriage | Total Distance(km) |\ | --- | --- |\ | Rail | 1000 |\ | Inland waterway | 110 |\ | Short sea containerized | 1100 |\ | Deep sea containerized | 7600 |\ \ | % distance by main carriage | GHG emission intensity(g CO2e/tkm) |\ | --- | --- |\ | 85 | 32.5 |\ | 85 | 53.2 |\ | 85 | 16.9 |\ | 90 | 9.7 |\ \ 3.8 Intermodal transport\ \ Intermodal transport involves the transport\ of a consignment by at least two transport\ \ of a consignment by at least two transport\ modes, which necessarily have different\ operating characteristics, as well as a\ handling operation at a logistics site each\ time there is a change of mode. As such,\ assigning a default GHG emission intensity\ to an intermodal transport is subject to a\ greater degree of uncertainty than to an\ individual transport mode - not only does it\ depend on the uncertainty associated with\ the assumptions for each individual transport\ \ of a consignment by at least two transport\ modes, which necessarily have different\ operating characteristics, as well as a\ handling operation at a logistics site each\ time there is a change of mode. As such,\ assigning a default GHG emission intensity\ to an intermodal transport is subject to a\ greater degree of uncertainty than to an\ individual transport mode - not only does it\ depend on the uncertainty associated with\ the assumptions for each individual transport\ \ depend on the uncertainty associated with\ the assumptions for each individual transport\ element, but also the assumed length, and\ hence relative contribution, of each leg.\ \ element, but also the assumed length, and\ hence relative contribution, of each leg.\ \ Hence, the following scenarios should be\ \ better data and by calculating the emissions\ for every step in the intermodal chain including\ transshipment is provided in Annex 3. This\ would also allow the calculation of other\ modal combinations such as road + rail /\ barge + deep sea, for example in addition to\ the four default combinations.\ \ Includes GHG emissions associated with two\ transshipment actions, one at each end of the\ main haul.\ \ Additional information is provided in Annex\ 2 (Intermodal GHG emission intensity\ by distance) which shows the variability\ according to total distance, distance share as\ well as an equation that sets out the impact\ on GHG emission intensity of varying these\ two distance parameters, keeping all other\ assumptions fixed.\ \ 3.9 Logistics Sites\ \ Information regarding GHG emissions from\ logistics sites in general remains relatively\ limited. Hence, provision of default GHG\ emission values specifically for the chemical\ industry (including tank storage as well\ as transshipment and warehousing) is not\ possible and the guidance is to use the\ general values specified in Module 2 of the\ GLEC Framework. (Efforts will continue with\ GLEC members and partner organizations\ to add depth to the data regarding GHG\ emissions from logistics sites with a view\ to revising the data in future versions of\ the Framework.) It is recommended that\ companies request a value from the operator\ of the logistics site that represents the GHG\ emission per tonne of product throughput for\ their specific situation.\ \ * * *\ \ Table 10\ Indicative Tank Cleaning Calculation based on data provided by\ the European Federation of Tank Cleaning Organizations (EFTCO)\ (see [www.eftco.org/emission-guideline](http://www.eftco.org/emission-guideline))\ \ | Electricity(kgCO2e/KWh) |\ | --- |\ | 0.349 |\ \ | Gasoil(gCO2e/MJ) |\ | --- |\ | 95.4 |\ \ | Per tank cleaning |\ | --- |\ | Energy consumption gas(MJ) |\ | Energy consumption gasoil(MJ) |\ | Total electricity consumption(kWh) |\ | Total per tank cleaning |\ \ | Consumption | ProductionkgCO2e |\ | --- | --- |\ | 881.6 | 68.6 |\ | 12.77 | 1.2 |\ | 48.0 | 16.8 |\ | - | 86.6 |\ \ 3.10 Cleaning Operations\ \ The above table sets out the calculation\ used to determine a representative value for\ tank cleaning. The value of 86.6 kg CO2e per\ cleaning operation conducted has been used\ in several of the worked examples later in this\ document.\ \ Note: The heating efficiency of the steam\ generator in the above example is assumed\ to be 90%. (For other assumptions see the\ EFTCO webpage above.)\ \ Note: according to the transport chain\ boundaries, electricity consumption included\ only relates directly to cleaning operation.\ \ 4. General guidelines for transport\ operators and logistics service\ providers\ \ This section briefly describes the steps\ a carrier, or LSP that operates transport\ equipment, must take in order to align with\ requirements of the GLEC Framework. The\ main focus is guidance to be used by transport\ operators in the collection and processing of\ operational data. Additional information is\ also provided for situations where operations\ are subcontracted, as is often the case for\ integrated, intermodal and specialist transport.\ \ • the risk of incorrect reporting;\ • wasted time linked to incorrect or\ \ and improving opportunities:\ • to identify emission hotspots\ \ 4.1 Operational data collection\ and processing\ \ • to identify emission hotspots\ • to make joint decisions to improve\ \ efficiency / reduce emissions\ \ GHG emission (mass of CO2e) = fuel / electricity\ consumption (per amount of energy used) x\ WTW emission factor (kg CO2e per amount of\ fuel used)\ \ So that a carrier can report information to their\ customer, which may be an LSP, in a way that\ is meaningful, it makes sense for the carrier to\ tailor the information to the customer’s needs\ by following some simple steps, as outlined\ below. The intention is to provide transparency\ about the GHG emissions which the carrier\ \ For the information to be as relevant as\ possible it is important to break up your overall\ transport activities into different categories\ and then base your customer report on the\ category relevant to them. The idea is that the\ characteristics of the trips within one category\ are as similar as possible (e.g. same type of\ truck, lanes, distances, type of load, etc.), so\ that the performance is clustered around a\ representative value.\ \ * * *\ \ The breakdown of the default GHG emission\ intensities follow a suggests structure for the\ transport operation categories as follows:\ \ Road transport:\ Level 1:\ \ Level 1:\ \ • Overall average\ \ Level 2:\ • Packed goods average, ambient\ \ • Overall average\ \ • Packed goods average, ambient\ • Packed goods average, temperature controlled\ \ • Packed goods average, temperature controlled\ • Bulk goods average, ambient\ \ • Bulk goods average, ambient\ • Bulk goods average, temperature controlled\ \ • Bulk goods average, temperature controlled\ \ Level 3:\ • Packed goods: FTL, ambient\ \ • Packed goods: FTL, temperature controlled\ • Packed goods: partial load, ambient\ \ • Packed goods: FTL, ambient\ • Packed goods: FTL, temperature controlled\ \ • Packed goods: partial load, ambient\ • Packed goods: partial load,\ \ • Packed goods: groupage,\ temperature controlled\ • Bulk goods: tank truck, ambient\ \ • Bulk goods: tank truck, ambient\ • Bulk goods: tank truck, temperature controlled\ \ • Bulk goods: tank truck, temperature controlled\ • Bulk goods: tank truck, dedicated, ambient\ \ • Bulk goods: tank truck, dedicated, ambient\ • Bulk goods: tank truck, dedicated,\ \ • Bulk goods: tank truck, dedicated,\ temperature controlled\ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo, ambient\ \ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo, ambient\ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo,\ \ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo, ambient\ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo,\ temperature controlled\ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo,\ \ • Bulk goods: hopper/silo, dedicated,\ temperature controlled\ • Bulk goods: tank container, ambient\ \ • Bulk goods: tank container, ambient\ • Bulk goods: tank container,\ \ • Bulk goods: tank container,\ temperature controlled\ \ • Bulk goods: tank container, dedicated,\ ambient\ • Bulk goods: tank container, dedicated,\ \ ambient\ • Bulk goods: tank container, dedicated,\ temperature controlled\ \ Intermodal transport\ • Road + rail main carriage\ \ • Road + rail main carriage\ • Road + inland waterway main carriage\ \ • Road + inland waterway main carriage\ • Road + short sea containerized main carriage\ \ • Road + short sea containerized main carriage\ • Road + deep sea containerized main carriage\ \ • Road + deep sea containerized main carriage\ \ Rail transport\ Level 1:\ \ Level 1:\ • Overall sector average\ \ Level 2:\ • Track Container\ \ • Track Container\ • Track RTC blocktrain\ \ • Track RTC blocktrain\ • Track RTC (single wagon)\ \ • Chemical tanker\ • General cargo\ \ • Container transport: sector average\ • Container transport: by trade lane\ \ • Track RTC (single wagon)\ \ Inland waterway transport\ \ Sea transport\ \ • Bulk tanker\ • Container vessel\ \ • Container vessel\ \ • Tanker barge (liquid)\ \ • Tanker barge (liquid)\ • Tanker barge (gas)\ \ • Gas tanker\ • RoRo\ \ • Tanker barge (gas)\ • Dry barge\ \ • Container vessel 110m\ • Container vessel 135\ \ • Dry barge\ • Container vessel 110m\ \ Ideally, the fuel data will be available as\ actual liters consumed per vehicle and it will\ be possible to assign the distance traveled,\ the amount of product transported and the\ associated fuel consumption by category\ from the bottom up. In many cases individual\ vehicles will only operate in one category,\ but where that is not the case the operations\ should be assigned by category according to\ use. Remember, you must include fuel used\ when the vehicle is empty and returning to\ base, transporting empty containers, traveling\ to cleaning, or to its next place of loading.\ \ To determine the total GHG emissions for\ each category that is relevant to you and your\ customer, it is important that you know the fuel\ consumed in each category over the requested\ time period.\ \ The approach taken will depend on the maturity\ level of your organization, and may be based\ on the total amount of liters purchased, the\ average fuel consumption by type of truck in the\ fleet, or actual consumption monitored through\ telematics systems or refueling records.\ \ Previous\ Intermodaljob\ \ Examples of empty running and its relation to the calculation of emissions\ \ Trip to\ loading\ \ Transport\ \ Main haul\ \ Cleaning\ \ Terminal\ \ Figure 2\ Examples of empty running and its relation to the calculation of emissions\ \ Oncarriage\ \ Total mass CO2e (based on total fuel consumption+cleaning, handling warehousing)\ \ Repositioning\ \ positioning\ \ Tonne km (loaded)\ \ * * *\ \ If primary fuel data is not available at the ideal,\ disaggregated level then you will either have to\ \ • work with averages of fuel consumption for\ the different vehicle types. In that case\ you need to know the actual total\ kilometers (empty and full) driven by the\ different vehicle types in each operation\ category. For example see Table 11.\ \ • or make top-down assumptions; for example,\ it could be that you make an estimate of the\ share of the total fuel consumption for the\ different operation categories based on your\ knowledge of the proportions of vehicle\ activity within your business. For example\ see table 12.\ \ When you use either of these approximations\ it is important to check that when you add\ together the consumption of all the categories\ this matches the total consumption of your\ operation, so you are sure that all consumption\ has been accounted for.\ \ You may be consuming different fuel types\ (e.g. diesel, biodiesel blend, liquefied natural\ gas (LNG)) within one operation category.\ \ In this case you would need to determine\ the consumption of the individual fuel types\ separately in order to calculate the emissions\ correctly at Step 3.\ \ STEP 3: Calculate total GHG emissions\ \ Once you know the actual fuel consumption for\ the operation category, you can now calculate\ the related GHG emissions for each fuel using\ the emission factor for that fuel. The emission\ factors will depend on the type of fuel and may\ vary by region. The GLEC Framework contains\ standard factors for most common fuels; these\ may be updated occasionally, so always check\ the latest version of the GLEC Framework\ (Module 1). For some more innovative fuels\ such as high blend biofuels your fuel supplier\ probably has its own certified value for the\ emission factor linked to the fuel that they are\ supplying.\ \ For example, if three different fuel grades are\ used within a single operation category as\ follows, the total GHG emissions would be\ calculated as shown on Table 13.\ \ Table 11\ Calculation based on average fuel consumption\ \ | Category: Bulk truck | Total km driven per type |\ | --- | --- |\ | Truck type A | 10,000,000 |\ | Truck type B | 5,000,000 |\ | Total fuel consumption in category | |\ \ | Avg consumption l/km | Consumption per truck type |\ | --- | --- |\ | 0.26 | 2,600,000 |\ | 0.30 | 1,500,000 |\ | | 4,100,000 |\ \ Table 12\ Calculation based on share of fuel consumption\ \ | Transport Category | Percentage of total fuel consumption | Liters fuel consumed |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Total company fuel consumption | | 200,000,000 |\ | Bulk truck(liquid/solid) | 40% | 80,000,000 |\ | Container carrying trucks | 30% | 60,000,000 |\ | Refrigerated trucks | 30% | 60,000,000 |\ \ | Fuel type | Consumption(l) |\ | --- | --- |\ | Diesel | 80,000,000 |\ | Diesel(5% biodiesel blend) | 20,000,000 |\ | 100% Biodiesel | 1,000,000 |\ | Total emissions for category | |\ \ | Well to Wheel emission factor(kg CO2e/l fuel) | Total emissions(t)CO2e |\ | --- | --- |\ | 3.48 | 278,400 |\ | 3.36 | 67,200 |\ | 1.17 | 1,170 |\ | | 346,770 |\ \ Table 13\ \ * * *\ \ STEP 4: Calculate the emission intensity\ \ When sharing information with your customer\ you may be happy to collect and share your\ primary data (fuel used and resulting emissions)\ with them so that they can see the full\ calculation shown in Step 3. This is most likely\ to be relevant for dedicated transport contracts\ where their volumes can more easily be\ identified. Alternatively, you may prefer to share\ the emission intensity of the transport operation\ that you provide on their behalf. To calculate the\ emission intensity you need to know the total\ GHG emissions (from Step 3) and the amount of\ transport activity expressed in tonne kilometers.\ \ In this step you must calculate the transport\ activity for all the loaded trips in each category\ and add up the tonne kilometer values for each\ trip. This gives the total tkm of the category and\ can also accurately identify the tkm for your\ \ individual customers. More detailed guidance\ on calculating transport activity is presented in\ Section 1 Chapter 2.\ \ For a short example of the correct approach to\ calculate the transport activity, see Table 14.\ \ The emission intensity is easily calculated\ by dividing the total emissions in a transport\ operation category by the tkm in that category.\ \ Using this information you can calculate\ that you provide on their behalf. To calculate the emissions for each category, for example see\ Table 15.\ \ Table 14\ Calculation of transport activity\ \ | Trip | Customer | Loaded weight(t) per trip |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | 1 | Customer A | 20 |\ | 2 | Customer B | 19 |\ | 3 | Customer B | 22 |\ | Total tkm for this category over the requested time period | | |\ \ | Loaded distance traveled(km) per trip | Metric ton kilometers(tkm) |\ | --- | --- |\ | 150 | 3,000 |\ | 100 | 1,900 |\ | 200 | 4,400 |\ | | 9,300 |\ \ Table 15\ \ | Category | Total emissions(kg CO2e) |\ | --- | --- |\ | Bulk truck | 7,680 |\ | Container carrying truck | 5,280 |\ \ | Total transport activity (tkm) | GHG intensity kg CO2e /tkm |\ | --- | --- |\ | 128000 | 0.060 |\ | 60000 | 0.088 |\ \ STEP 5: Carrier reporting to direct customer\ \ you provide directly to each customer. This\ example shows your Bulk truck category and\ your Container carrying truck category.\ \ Follow the guidance in Section 2 Chapter 1 on\ reporting. You should report the activities that\ \ Table 16\ Example report from carrier to customer\ \ | Item | GHG intensity(WTW)CO2ekg/tkm | Customer specific tkm\*\*\*\* | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Bulk truck category | 0.060 | 50,000 | 3,000 |\ | Container carrying truck category | 0.088 | 10,000 | 880 |\ | Total emissions kg CO2e | | | 3,880 |\ | Input data type\*\* | 100% primary data | | |\ | Mode coverage\* | Road | | |\ | Data verification statement\*\*\* | Data has not been independently verified by a 3rd party | | |\ | Period covered | 1/1/2020-31/12/2020 | | |\ \ business these defaults were used for.\ \*\*\*) For extra confidence you could ask an independent 3rd party to\ verify the data and calculations, but this is not common yet.\ \*\*\*\*) Please specify if actual or planned kms have been used\ \ Note: if you provide a transport service with the\ same characteristics for multiple customers (e.g.\ a groupage service) it is acceptable to calculate\ the emission intensity for the combined service\ and report the same emission intensity to\ all customers that receive that service. See\ the examples provided in Annex 3 for more\ information.\ 152\ \ * * *\ \ 4.2 Managing data from\ subcontracted services\ \ It is often the case that for some elements of\ a transport service the carrier is providing the\ service to an intermediary that integrates the\ individual transport and logistics operations to\ provide the overall contracted service i.e. (some\ of) the actual operations are subcontracted.\ \ This often has an influence on the visibility of\ data within the contract chain and the way in\ which the final calculation is presented to the\ chemical company as the final customer.\ \ Three general situations are possible:\ \ • the transport provider does not operate\ any transport services directly, instead\ subcontracting all aspects to one or more\ transport operators, possibly across different\ modes of transport\ • the transport provider operates transport\ \ • the transport provider operates transport\ services only in one mode and subcontracts\ other modes where they are necessary in order\ to complete the full transport operation, e.g.,\ for intermodal transport services.\ • the transport provider operates transport\ \ for intermodal transport services.\ • the transport provider operates transport\ services only in one mode but sometimes\ subcontracts some operations in order to\ manage overall fluctuations in demand or\ where a special vehicle is needed as part of a\ broader contract.\ \ The main contractor should request the\ information from the transport operators in the\ format as set out in Section 4.1 and to use this\ information within its own reporting. To date\ this has not been common but is expected to\ become more so in the future as data and IT\ systems improve. In cases where this data is\ not shared then the main contractor will need to\ rely on either detailed modeling (Section 5.3.2)\ or the industry defaults (Section 3) for those\ elements of the service that are subcontracted.\ \ For intermodal transport the main contractor\ is expected to report the total GHG emissions\ and the emission intensity of the full intermodal\ service, as set out in Section 2, Chapter 1.\ \ LSP reporting to chemical company\ \ Again this follows the guidance in the GLEC\ Framework on reporting, the so called “GLEC\ Declaration”. The LSP should report the\ activities that within the overall contract,\ whether provided using its own assets or\ those of subcontracted transport and logistics\ operators. The example report below is for an\ intermodal transport service as set out in more\ detail in Annex 3.\ \ Table 17\ Example intermodal report from main contractor to customer\ \ | Category | GHG intensity (WTW)CO2e kg/tkm | Customer specific tkm | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Intermodal rail transportDormagen to Italy | 0.0181 | 222,000 | 4,007 |\ | Total emissions kg CO2e | | | 4,007 |\ | Input data type$\\cdot$ | primary data for road transport;default data for rail, transhipment and tank cleaning | | |\ | Mode coverage | Road(pre- and on-carriage),transshipment,rail(main carriage) tank cleaning | | |\ | | GHG intensity(WTW)CO2e kg/tkm | Customer specific tkm | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | Rail | 0.0100 | | 2,109 |\ | Road | 0.0883 | | 980 |\ | Data verification statement | Data has not been independently verified by a 3rd party | | |\ | Period covered | 1/1/2020-31/12/2020 | | |\ \ - primary data for operations using owned trucks; default data used for subcontracted operations\ \ * * *\ \ 5. Guidelines for chemical\ companies per mode\ \ The intention is that the contracted transport\ provider will provide a report, as set out in\ Section 4 Step 5, presenting the results of\ GHG emission calculations aggregated for the\ transport they provide in each of the transport\ operation categories set out in Section 3.\ \ The reports provided should contain the\ information required for a chemical company to\ calculate its freight transport GHG emissions for\ each transport operation category by summing\ up the declared emissions across all carriers\ and all transport operation categories.\ \ In cases where a logistics service provider\ fails to report, or does not report fully then the\ following procedures would apply:\ \ 1. No data reported: Request the data in the\ format set out in Section 4 Step 5.\ \ a. Request the data as set out in Section 4\ Step 5, split out for each TOC;\ b. If step 2a fails, perform your own GHG\ emission calculation for each TOC according\ to 5.1.\ \ 3. If the logistics service provider presents only\ the total GHG emission (i.e. total CO2 or CO2e)\ for each TOC:\ \ a. Request the emission intensity and transport\ activity data for each TOC, as set out in Section\ 4 step 5;\ b. If Step 3a fails, calculate the GHG emissions\ \ b. If Step 3a fails, calculate the GHG emissions\ according to 5.1 in order to sense-check the\ total GHG emission value provided by the\ carrier for each TOC. If in doubt, use your own\ calculation results and engage with the carrier to\ try to establish the reasons why they struggled\ to report fully.\ \ 5.1 Chemical company calculation\ \ 4. If the logistics service provider presents only a\ GHG emission intensity for each TOC:\ \ a. Request the emission intensity and transport\ activity data as set out in Section 4 Step 5;\ b. If step 4a fails, compare the GHG emission\ intensity provided with the default emission\ intensity for that TOC. If you are satisfied\ that the GHG emission intensity provided by\ the carrier is credible then calculate the GHG\ emissions according to 5.1 using the GHG\ emission intensity provided carrier. If in doubt,\ calculate the GHG emissions according to 5.1\ using the default GHG emission intensity for\ the TOC and engage with the carrier to try to\ establish the reasons why they struggled to\ report fully.\ \ In cases where the data provided by the\ logistics service provider is incomplete the\ chemical company should calculate the GHG\ emissions for each TOC using the following\ formula:\ \ GHG emission (mass of CO e) = GHG\ 2\ emission intensity (mass of CO2e / tonne\ km) x transport activity (tonne kilometers)\ \ Use the GHG emission intensity provided\ by the carrier if you have confidence in it;\ otherwise use the default industry emission\ intensity for that TOC\ \ If the carrier provides a GHG emission\ intensity but not the associated tonne km\ there is a risk of underestimating the total\ emissions. In such cases an additional\ distance adjustment factor of 5% should be\ applied to allow for the typical extra actual\ distance traveled by the vehicle compared\ to the planned distance calculated by a\ route planner.\ \ Because reporting of GHG emissions between\ carrier and their customer is not yet common\ it is likely that in the early stages there will be\ errors in the data reported. Common errors\ that could impact the carrier’s calculation that\ the customer should be aware of include:\ \ • Incomplete reporting. This is one reason\ why it is useful to include the tonne km\ value as part of the carrier report – because\ the chemical company knows the amount of\ transport contracted it should become clear\ quickly if some of the transport activity has\ been missed out.\ \ GHG emission (mass of CO e) = GHG\ 2\ emission intensity x chemical company\ estimate of transport activity x 1.05\ \ • Incorrect calculation of the transport activity\ can lead to calculation of an incorrect\ emission intensity. Follow the detailed\ guidance in Chapter 2 of the GLEC\ Framework.\ \ Note: it is normal for the carrier’s transport\ activity to be slightly higher than the chemical\ company’s expectation, partly because actual\ distance traveled is almost always greater\ than the planned distance, even when the\ origin, destination and route are known;\ however, for groupage or LTL transport the\ difference may be considerably higher\ because the chemical company is unlikely to\ know precise details of the carrier’s network\ and the position of intermediate transfer\ locations and depots can have a significant\ influence on the total distance traveled.\ \ * * *\ \ • Use of incorrect emission factors – most\ likely substituting a tank-to-wheel rather\ than a well-to-wheel value. This would be\ apparent through incorrect, probably lower,\ total emission and emission intensities than\ expected.\ \ • Failure to include the emissions from empty\ running within the calculation. This would\ result in a systematically lower, total\ emission and emission intensities than\ expected and would be more noticeable for\ dedicated transport where the level of empty\ running is higher.\ \ • Inclusion of the weight of transport\ equipment, such as containers or tank\ containers, within the weight of the load\ and hence the transport activity (tonne-km).\ This would result in a systematically lower,\ total emission and emission intensities than\ expected.\ \ 5.3 Alternative Calculation approaches\ \ In the future, as this type of data sharing\ becomes more common it is likely that costeffective, commercial data verification services\ will become available.\ \ In addition to the use of aggregated data\ provided by the carrier, which is presented\ above as the standard approach to reporting,\ and the backup provided by the chemical\ sector default emission intensities presented\ in this report, other approaches are possible.\ \ 5.3.1 Shipment level data\ \ As noted in Section 4 Step 4, your carrier may\ be willing to share primary information with\ you so that you can see the full calculation.\ \ This would probably help to remove\ uncertainty regarding the approach taken\ and data used in the calculation. Access to\ data at this level is most likely for dedicated\ transport where long-term contracts support\ a truly collaborative approach to operational\ efficiency. In contrast, this approach is\ unlikely for shared transport options where\ it might reveal commercially confidential\ information.\ \ If you do have access to shipment level data\ in collaboration with your carrier, it is important\ to resist the temptation to exclude emissions\ linked to empty running. For road transport\ the most widely accepted way to include the\ impact of empty running is to calculate the\ average level of empty running across the\ whole transport operation category and then\ apply this value to the emissions due to the\ loaded trips in proportion to the tonne-kms.\ \ 5.3.2 Modeled Emissions\ \ Some examples of this may include:\ \ Modeling of GHG emissions is a wellestablished option – Smart Freight Centre\ has reviewed and accredited several such\ calculation tools as being in conformance\ to the GLEC Framework – see www.\ smartfreightcentre.org for more current\ details. The use of such models may be\ beneficial in that it should be possible to tailor\ the calculated values to match the specific\ characteristics of the transport that is being\ provided, rather than relying on the default\ values, which are, by their very nature, only\ generally representative. Modeling is also\ useful to assess the potential of different\ options to reduce emissions as a first step\ prior to investing in actual trials.\ \ • Revision of the levels of empty running\ and typical load factors as better access\ to primary data and changes to standard\ industry practices become apparent\ \ • Revision of default GHG emission intensities\ as updated emission factors for diesel are\ published, new, lower emission fuels\ become more commonplace for chemicals\ transport in some or all modes\ \ 6. Recommendations for\ updating the defaults.\ \ • More detailed reporting requirements may\ be put in place for carriers and/or shippers,\ for example to split up the well-to-tank and\ tank-to-wheel components of the overall\ emission values.\ \ • Improvements in the way that baseline\ data for specific modes are managed by the\ legislative bodies. For example, the IMO is\ aware of some overlap between the\ different vessel categories, particularly\ regarding chemical and oil tankers which use\ different size classifications even though\ some vessels may be used interchangeably;\ there are also calls to move from the\ use of vessel size classes to a continuous\ relationship between vessel size and\ expected emissions. These issues are being\ reviewed at IMO level, and the outcome\ of the discussions may result in a revised\ approach to calculating default emission\ intensities.\ \ * * *\ \ Annex 1:\ Road transport: Full default table\ \ Table 18\ Emission intensities for standard articulated truck\ (i.e. no special equipment) with B5 diesel/biodiesel blend.\ \ | % truck kms empty | Default Emission intensity g CO2e / tonne-km on a well to wheels basis | | | | | | | | | | |\ | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\ | Payload (tonnes) | | | | | | | | | | | |\ | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 24 | 26 | 28 | |\ | 0% | 136 | 113 | 98 | 87 | 79 | 62 | 67 | 63 | 60 | 57 | 54 |\ | 2% | 138 | 115 | 99 | 88 | 80 | 63 | 68 | 64 | 60 | 57 | 55 |\ | 4% | 141 | 117 | 101 | 90 | 81 | 64 | 69 | 65 | 61 | 58 | 56 |\ | 6% | 143 | 119 | 103 | 91 | 82 | 65 | 70 | 66 | 62 | 59 | 56 |\ | 8% | 146 | 121 | 104 | 93 | 84 | 66 | 71 | 67 | 63 | 60 | 57 |\ | 10% | 149 | 123 | 106 | 94 | 85 | 67 | 72 | 68 | 64 | 61 | 58 |\ | 12% | 152 | 126 | 108 | 96 | 87 | 68 | 74 | 69 | 65 | 62 | 59 |\ | 14% | 155 | 128 | 110 | 98 | 88 | 69 | 75 | 70 | 66 | 62 | 60 |\ | 16% | 158 | 131 | 112 | 99 | 90 | 70 | 76 | 71 | 67 | 63 | 60 |\ | 18% | 161 | 133 | 115 | 101 | 91 | 72 | 77 | 72 | 68 | 64 | 61 |\ | 20% | 165 | 136 | 117 | 103 | 93 | 73 | 79 | 74 | 69 | 66 | 62 |\ | 22% | 168 | 139 | 119 | 105 | 95 | 74 | 80 | 75 | 70 | 67 | 63 |\ | 24% | 172 | 142 | 122 | 108 | 97 | 76 | 82 | 76 | 72 | 68 | 65 |\ | 26% | 176 | 145 | 125 | 110 | 99 | 77 | 83 | 78 | 73 | 69 | 66 |\ | 28% | 180 | 149 | 127 | 112 | 101 | 79 | 85 | 79 | 74 | 70 | 67 |\ | 30% | 185 | 152 | 131 | 115 | 103 | 81 | 87 | 81 | 76 | 72 | 68 |\ | 32% | 190 | 156 | 134 | 118 | 106 | 83 | 89 | 83 | 78 | 73 | 70 |\ | 34% | 195 | 160 | 137 | 121 | 108 | 84 | 91 | 85 | 79 | 75 | 71 |\ | 36% | 200 | 165 | 141 | 124 | 111 | 87 | 93 | 87 | 81 | 77 | 73 |\ | 38% | 206 | 169 | 145 | 127 | 114 | 89 | 95 | 89 | 83 | 78 | 74 |\ \ Annex 2:\ \ Intermodal GHG emission intensity by distance\ \ The following graphs show the relationships\ between GHG emission intensity and distance\ for the four examples of intermodal transport\ presented in Section 3.8. As noted there,\ assigning a default GHG emission intensity to\ an intermodal transport is subject to a greater\ degree of uncertainty than to an individual\ mode due to the greater number of variables.\ \ Hence, it must be noted that the graphs show\ the relationship only for a combination of\ one example loading and empty running for\ each of the pre-carriage, main transport and\ on-carriage; however, it is instructive to show\ that the emission intensity does decrease\ marginally as the logistics site emissions are\ spread over a greater transport activity. At\ the same time the increase in total emissions\ per tonne of product moved has a close to\ \ linear relationship with distance, showing the\ impact of increasing supply chain distances\ on total GHG emissions, even when using\ an intermodal option. The graphs also show\ how reducing the proportion of distance by\ road impacts on each of these intermodal\ combinations.\ \ 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450\ \ Distance (km)\ \ * * *\ \ e/tkm)2\ GHG Emission Intensity (g CO\ \ Intermodal Inland Waterway\ \ e/tkm)2\ GHG Emission Intensity (g CO\ \ Intermodal Deep Sea\ \ The following graph then shows how the modes compare with each other for a standard 10% pre- and on-carriage element\ by road. It is worth noting that short sea distances can be considerably longer than rail or inland waterway depending on the\ exact route meaning that it is important to consider the exact options rather than relying solely on general emission intensities.\ \ e / tonne2\ kg CO\ \ Comparison of Intermodal options with 10% road\ \ e / tonne2\ kg CO\ \ * * *\ \ Road Transport\ \ Using the equation from Section 5.1 the GHG\ emissions can be estimated to be:\ \ Chemical Company Calculations\ \ GHG emission (mass of CO2e) = GHG\ emission intensity x customer estimate of\ transport activity x 1.05\ \ Level 3 Calculation\ \ Calculation of GHG emissions for groupage\ transport to move 10 tonnes of packed goods\ between two points that are 250 km apart\ according to the shortest feasible distance\ by road.\ \ (The distance adjustment factor is applied\ due to the lack of information about the actual\ distance that the goods are transported for\ this groupage transport.)\ \ Given that the customer knows that the goods\ are being transported via a groupage transport\ then the starting point is the level 3 WTW GHG\ emission intensity of 95 g CO2e/tkm from the\ table in Section 3.2.\ \ GHG emission = 95 g CO e/tkm x 10 t x 250\ 2\ km x 1.05 = 249.38 kg CO e 2\ \ Calculation using information provided by the\ carrier/LSP\ \ The transport service provider has been able\ to provide the following information that\ relates to this transport:\ \ | Item | GHG intensity (WTW) CO2e kg/tkm |\ | --- | --- |\ | Ambient groupage transport | 0.0617 |\ | Total emissions kg CO2e | |\ | Input data type | 100% primary data |\ | Mode coverage | Road |\ | Data verification statement | Data has not been independent |\ | Period covered | March 2021 |\ \ | Customer specific tkm | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | --- | --- |\ | 28,600 | 160.42 |\ | | 160.42 |\ | | |\ | | |\ | ently verified by a 3rd party | |\ | | |\ | | |\ \ Table 19\ Example of road transport reporting\ \ The report covers the whole of the month’s\ operations for its groupage operations for all\ customers. The transport activity value is the\ amount of transport activity for this particular\ customer. Without confirmation of the tonne\ km linked to this specific consignment the\ calculation would be:\ \ GHG emission = 61.7 g CO e/tkm x 10 t x\ 2\ 250 km x 1.05 = 161.96 kg CO2e\ \ (The distance adjustment factor of 1.05 is\ applied as the provided GHG intensity is\ assumed to be based on actual distances if\ not stated otherwise)\ \ However, if the transport operator confirms\ that the actual transport activity of this\ consignment was 2600 tkm then the\ calculation can be refined to be:\ \ GHG emission = 61.7 g CO e/tkm x 2600\ 2\ tkm = 160.42 kg CO e2\ \ * * *\ \ Road Example 2\ \ Level 3 Calculation\ \ Calculation of GHG emissions for groupage\ transport to move 8 tonnes of packed goods\ between two points that are 510 km apart\ according to the shortest feasible distance\ by road.\ \ Using the equation from Section 5.1 the GHG\ emissions can be estimated to be:\ \ Given that the customer knows that the goods\ are being transported via a groupage transport\ then the starting point is again the level 3\ WTW GHG emission intensity of 95 g CO2e/\ tkm from the table in Section 3.2.\ \ GHG emission (mass of CO2e) = GHG\ emission intensity x customer estimate of\ transport activity x 1.05\ \ (The distance adjustment factor is applied\ due to the lack of information about the actual\ distance that the goods are transported for\ this groupage transport.)\ \ GHG emission = 95 g CO2e/tkm x 8 t x 510\ km x 1.05 = 406.98 kg CO2e\ \ \ \\mathrm\ {\\bf O}\_{2}\ \\mathrm e\ \ Calculation using information provided by the\ carrier/LSP\ \ The transport service provider has been able\ to provide the following information that\ relates to this transport:\ \ Table 20\ Example of road transport reporting\ \ | Item | GHG intensity (WTW) CO2e kg/tkm |\ | --- | --- |\ | Ambient groupage transport | 0.0549 |\ | Total emissions kg CO2e | |\ | Input data type | 100% primary data |\ | Mode coverage | Road |\ | Data verification statement | Data has not been independent |\ | Period covered | Q1 2021 |\ \ | Customer specific tkm | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | --- | --- |\ | 4,284 | 235.19 |\ | | 235.19 |\ | | |\ | | |\ | y verified by a 3rd party | |\ | | |\ \ Example of road transport reporting\ \ The report covers the whole of the quarter’s\ operations for its groupage operations for all\ customers. The transport activity value is the\ amount of transport activity for this particular\ customer. Without confirmation of the tonne\ km linked to this specific consignment the\ calculation would be:\ \ \ \\mathrm\ c{O\_{2}e\\bar\ \ GHG emission = 54.9 g CO2e/tkm x 8 t x 510\ km x 1.05 = 235.19 kg CO2e\ \ If the transport operator is unable to\ confirm the actual transport activity of this\ consignment then the above is the best\ calculation available to the customer.\ \ \\mathrm{C O\_{2}}\ \ * * *\ \ Table 21\ Example of a multi-element transport chain\ \ | Start point | End point | Load(t) |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Depot | A | 0 |\ | A | B | 10 |\ | B | C | 23 |\ | C | Depot | 0 |\ | Depot | A | 0 |\ | A | B | 10 |\ | B | C | 23 |\ | C | Depot | 18 |\ | Depot | E | 18 |\ | E | Depot | 12 |\ | Depot | A | 12 |\ | A | C | 25 |\ | C | Depot | 18 |\ | Depot | E | 18 |\ | E | Depot | 0 |\ | Total | | |\ | Overall fuel intensity | | |\ | Overall GHG emission intensity( based on Diesel fuel emission factor of 3.48kgCO2e/liter) | | |\ \ | Distance(km) | Activity(tkm) | Fuel(l) |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | 30 | 0 | 8 |\ | 20 | 200 | 6 |\ | 240 | 5520 | 79 |\ | 260 | 0 | 65 |\ | 30 | 0 | 8 |\ | 20 | 200 | 6 |\ | 240 | 5520 | 79 |\ | 260 | 4680 | 83 |\ | 40 | 720 | 13 |\ | 40 | 480 | 12 |\ | 30 | 360 | 9 |\ | 255 | 6375 | 87 |\ | 260 | 4680 | 83 |\ | 40 | 720 | 13 |\ | 40 | 0 | 10 |\ | | 29455 | 561 |\ | | 0.0190l/tkm | |\ | | 66.12gCO2e/tkm | |\ \ Road Example 1\ \ This provides a simplified worked example\ of the procedure for a transport company to\ calculate its GHG emission intensity for its\ groupage operations. It is recognized that\ a full, real-life network calculation would\ include a lot more data and hence may need a\ specialist software solution.\ \ Vehicle operations included for each element\ of the transport chain, see Table 21.\ \ Transport activity for a 10t consignment from A to C via B\ = 10 t x (20 + 240) km = 2600 tkm\ \ Transport activity for a 18t consignment from C to E via\ depot = 18 t x (260 + 40) km = 5400 tkm\ \ * * *\ \ Table 22\ Example of a complex multi-element transport chain\ \ | Start point | End point | Load(t) |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Hub A | O | 24 |\ | O | P | 18 |\ | P | Q | 6 |\ | Q | R | 14 |\ | R | S | 8 |\ | S | T | 12 |\ | T | U | 18 |\ | U | Hub A | 22 |\ | Handling emissions at Hub A:1.3kgCO2e/t=1.3x22=28.6 | | |\ | Hub A | Hub B | 22 |\ | Handling emissions at Hub B:1.3kgCO2e/t=1.3x22=28.6 | | |\ | Hub B | C | 22 |\ | C | D | 14 |\ | D | E | 17 |\ | E | F | 11 |\ | F | G | 16 |\ | G | H | 8 |\ | H | I | 12 |\ | I | Hub B | 20 |\ | Hub B | Hub A | 20 |\ | Total | | |\ | Overall fuel intensity | | |\ | Overall transport emissions | | |\ | Total emissions | | |\ | Overall GHG emission intensity | | |\ \ | Distance(km) | Activity(tkm) | Fuel(l) |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | 20 | 480 | 8 |\ | 4 | 72 | 1 |\ | 15 | 90 | 4 |\ | 20 | 280 | 6 |\ | 4 | 32 | 1 |\ | 18 | 216 | 5 |\ | 16 | 288 | 5 |\ | 9 | 198 | 3 |\ | kg | | |\ | 485 | 10670 | 160 |\ | kg | | |\ | 12 | 264 | 4 |\ | 16 | 224 | 5 |\ | 5 | 85 | 1 |\ | 14 | 154 | 4 |\ | 23 | 368 | 7 |\ | 8 | 64 | 2 |\ | 20 | 240 | 2 |\ | 8 | 160 | 3 |\ | 485 | 9700 | 158 |\ | | 23585 | 379 |\ | | 0.0161l/tkm | |\ | | 379x3.48=1318.92kgCO2e | |\ | | 1318.92+2x13.2=1376.12kgCO2e | |\ | | 1376.12/23585=58.3gCO2e/tkm | |\ \ \\mathrm{c{}}\_{\\mathrm{}{\\bf e}}\ \ Transport Company Calculations\ \ Road Example 2\ \ This provides a simplified worked example\ of the procedure for a transport company\ to calculate its GHG emission intensity from\ hub and spoke groupage operations. It\ is recognized that a full, real-life network\ calculation would include a lot more data and\ hence may need a specialist software solution.\ \ Vehicle operations included for each element\ of the transport chain, see Table 22.\ \ The optimal calculation for a hub and spoke\ groupage operation is to separate the\ calculation of the collection and delivery\ element from the trunking element and for\ the collection and delivery element to use\ the direct distances between each of the\ collection and delivery points and the hub to\ allocate the emissions to each consignment.\ \ This removes the variability of the detailed\ emission calculation depending on where the\ consignment happens to be within the order of\ a particular round.\ \ * * *\ \ Intermodal Transport\ \ Chemical Company Calculations\ \ Calculation of GHG emissions for ISO\ container on road/rail intermodal combination\ from Dormagen to Italy with a total distance\ of 1850 km. The order consists of 7\ consignments totalling 120 tonnes.\ \ The chemical company has various options\ depending on the amount of data available.\ \ These follow the levels introduced, along with\ the default values in Section 3 and reflect the\ amount of information available to them.\ \ Level 1: limited information\ \ With the bare minimum of information the\ chemical company should consult the table in\ Section 3.8 and combine the generic default\ value for intermodal rail transport of 32.5 g\ CO2e/tkm (based on 15% road transport by\ distance) with the total transport activity of\ the 7 consignments which is 120 x 1850 =\ 222000 tkm.\ \ Level 2: intermediate information\ \ With additional information the chemical\ company can refine the calculation and use\ the equation from Annex 2 with some of the\ modal default values from Section 3. For\ example:\ \ • The chemical company may know that road\ transport is only 5% of the total distance.\ • The chemical company may choose to\ \ • The chemical company may choose to\ use the average value for an ambient tank\ container of 75 g CO2e/tkm for the road legs\ • The chemical company may choose to use\ \ • The chemical company may choose to use\ the average GHG emission intensity for a\ track container of 17 g CO2e/tkm for the\ rail leg\ • The chemical company can use the average\ \ • The chemical company can use the average\ transshipment emission intensity of 1300 g/t\ from the GLEC Framework for the transfer\ between road and rail at each end of the\ main haul.\ \ Hence the level 2 total GHG emission is\ estimated to be 21.305 x 222000 + 7 x 86600\ = 5336000 g CO2e or 5.34 t CO2e.\ \ With these parameters the overall emission\ intensity = 0.95 x 17 + 0.05 x 75 +\ (2 x 1300 / 1850) = 21.305 g CO2e/tkm.\ \ Level 3: detailed information\ \ Road leg 1 (pre-carriage)\ Distance is known to be 40 km\ \ Distance is known to be 40 km\ Total product mass is 120 t across 7\ consignments, so average consignment\ weight is 17.1 t\ \ Rail leg (main carriage)\ Distance is known to be 1757.5 km\ \ Tailored emission intensity for a payload of\ 17.1 t and an average tank container empty\ running value of 19% is between these 4\ values from the table in Annex 1:\ \ Distance is known to be 1757.5 km\ Main carriage traction is known to be electric.\ \ Leading to an approximate emission intensity\ of 88.3 g CO2e/tkm.\ \ From the table in Section 3.3 the GHG\ emission intensity for a track container with\ electric traction is 10 g CO2e/tkm\ \ Total transport GHG emissions for road leg 1\ = 120 t x 40 km x 88.3 g CO2e/tkm = 823840\ g CO2e.\ \ Total transport GHG emissions for rail leg 1\ = 120 t x 1757.5 km x 10 g CO2e/tkm =\ 2109000 g CO2e\ \ Transshipment 1\ The average transshipment emission intensity\ \ The emissions for transshipment 2 are\ estimated to be the same as for\ transshipment 1.\ \ Transshipment 2\ The emissions for transshipment 2 are\ \ Road leg 2 (on-carriage)\ Distance is known to be 52.5 km\ \ Distance is known to be 52.5 km\ In the absence of carrier specific data the\ emission intensity for road leg 2 is taken to\ be the same as for road leg 1, i.e. 88.3 g\ CO2e/tkm.\ \ Total transport GHG emissions for road leg 2\ = 120 t x 52.5 km x 88.3 g CO2e/tkm\ = 556290 g CO2e.\ \ * * *\ \ Total for the Intermodal Journey\ The level 3 total GHG emission is the sum of\ the emissions from the individual journey legs.\ \ | Journey Leg |\ | --- |\ | Road Leg 1 |\ | Transshipment 1 |\ | Rail leg |\ | Transshipment 2 |\ | Road Leg 2 |\ | Tank cleaning |\ | Total |\ \ | Total GHG emission (t CO2e) |\ | --- |\ | 0.42 |\ | 0.16 |\ | 2.11 |\ | 0.16 |\ | 0.56 |\ | 0.61 |\ | 4.01 |\ \ With Data input from the Logistics\ Service Provider\ \ The LSP report for the above example\ would be (as shown in section 4.2):\ \ Table 23\ Example intermodal report from main contractor to customer\ \ | Item | GHG intensity (WTW) CO2e kg/tkm |\ | --- | --- |\ | Intermodal rail transport Dormagen to Italy | 0.0181 |\ | Total emissions kg CO2e | |\ | Input data type | Primary data for road transport |\ | Mode coverage | Road(pre- and on-carriage), Road(pre- and on-carriage) |\ | | GHG intensity(WTW)CO2ekg/tkm |\ | Rail | 0.0100 |\ | Road | 0.0883 |\ | Data verification statement | Data has not been independent |\ | Period covered | 1/1/2020-31/12/2020 |\ \ | Customer specific tkm | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | --- | --- |\ | 222,000 | 4,007 |\ | | 4,007 |\ | port; default data for rail, transshipment and tank cleaning | |\ | transshipment, rail (main carriage) tank cleaning | |\ | Customer specific tkm | WTW GHG emission(kg CO2e) |\ | 210,900 | 2,109 |\ | 111,100 | 980 |\ | ently verified by a 3rd party | |\ | | |\ | | |\ \ Annex 4:\ Partners\ \ \[Image: Im0\]\ \ * * *\ \ Annex unit conversions\ \ Table 1\ Distances\ \ | To convert from | To | Multiply by |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Foot(ft) | Meter(m) | 0.3048 |\ | Yard(yd) | m | 0.9144 |\ | International Mile(mi) | m | 1.609344 |\ | Nautical Mile(nmi) | Kilometer(km) | 1.852 |\ \ | To convert from | To | Multiply by |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | Short ton(2000lb) | Metric ton(t) | 0.90718474 |\ | Long or imperial ton(2240lb)t | | 1.016047 |\ | US pound(lb) | t | 0.000453592 |\ | Kilogram(kg) | t | 0.001 |\ | US Gallon | Liter(l) | 3.785411784 |\ | Short ton-mile(ton-mi) | t-km | 1.46 |\ \ Table 2\ Weight\ \ Table 3\ Twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU)\ \ | Cargo type | Tonnes per TEU |\ | --- | --- |\ | Lightweight cargo | 6 |\ | Average cargo | 10 |\ | Heavyweight cargo | 14.5 |\ | Empty container | 2 |\ \ * * *\ \ List of abbreviations\ \ | CCAC | Climate and Clean Air Coalition |\ | --- | --- |\ | CC | Clean Cargo |\ | CDP | Carbon Disclosure Project |\ | CH4 | Methane |\ | CNG | Compressed Natural Gas |\ | CO2 | Carbon Dioxide |\ | CO2e | Carbon Dioxide Equivalent |\ | CORSIA | Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation |\ | COVID-19 | Coronavirus Disease 2019 |\ | CSR | Corporate Sustainability Reporting |\ | DQA | Data Quality Assurance |\ | DAF | Distance Adjustment Factor |\ | DJSI | Dow Jones Sustainability Index |\ | EC | European Commission |\ | EEDI | Energy Efficiency Design Index |\ | EEOI | Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator |\ | eGRID | Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database |\ | ERTAC | Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee |\ | EU | European Union |\ | EU ETS | European Union Emissions Trading System |\ \ | FTL | Full Truck Load |\ | --- | --- |\ | GCD | Great Circle Distance |\ | GHG | Greenhouse Gas |\ | GIS | Geographic Information System |\ | GLEC | Global Logistics Emissions Council |\ | GPS | Global Positioning System |\ | GVW | Gross Vehicle Weight |\ | GWP | Global Warming Potential |\ | HBEFA | HBEFA: Handbook of Emission Factors (“Emissionsfaktorhandb”) |\ | HFCs | Hydrofluoro-Carbons |\ | HFO | Heavy Fuel Oil |\ | HGV | Heavy Goods Vehicle |\ | HOC | Hub Operation Category |\ | HPDI | High-Pressure Direct Injection |\ | IATA | International Air Transport Association |\ | ICAO | International Civil Aviation Organization |\ | ICC | International Chamber of Commerce |\ | ICT | Information and Communications Technology |\ | IEA | International Energy Agency |\ | IMO | International Maritime Organization |\ \ \\mathrm{C O\_{2}}\ \ {\\mathrm{c O}\_{2}e\\ \ * * *\ \ List of abbreviations\ \ | IPCC | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |\ | --- | --- |\ | ISO | International Organization for Standardization |\ | ITF | International Transport Forum |\ | kg | Kilogram |\ | kJ | Kilojoule |\ | KPI | Key Performance Indicator |\ | kWh | Kilowatt-hour |\ | LEARN | Logistics Emissions Accounting & Reduction Network |\ | LNG | Liquefied Natural Gas |\ | LPG | Liquefied Petroleum Gas |\ | LSP | Logistics Service Provider |\ | LTL | Less than Truck Load |\ | MDO | Marine Diesel Oil |\ | MIT | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |\ | N2O | Nitrous Oxide |\ | NDCs | Nationally Determined Contributions |\ | NF3 | Nitrogen Triflouride |\ | NGO | Non-Government Organization |\ | NOx | Nitrogen Oxides |\ | NTM | Network for Transport Measures |\ \ | OECD | Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development |\ | --- | --- |\ | peq | Passenger equivalent |\ | PFCs | Perfluoro-Carbons |\ | RAILISA | RAIL Information System and Analyses |\ | RED2 | Renewable Energy Directive (EU) |\ | REff Tool® | Resource Efficiency Tool |\ | RP | Recommended Practice |\ | SAF | SAF: Sustainable Aviation Fuel |\ | SBTi | Science-Based Targets initiative |\ | SDA | Sustainable Development Agenda |\ | SF6 | Sulphur Hexafluoride |\ | SFC | Smart Freight Centre |\ | SFD | Shortest Feasible Distance |\ | SI engine | Spark Ignition engine |\ | t | Tonne = 1000kg |\ | T&D | Transmission and Distribution |\ | TCE | Transport Chain Element |\ | TEU | Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit |\ | t-km | Tonne-kilometer |\ | TMS | Transport Management System |\ \ OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development\ \ NTM Network for Transport Measures\ \ TMS Transport Management System\ \ * * *\ \ List of abbreviations\ \ TOC Transport Operation Category\ \ TSC Transport Service Category\ \ TTW Tank-to-Wheel/Wake\ \ UIC Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (International Union of Railways)\ \ UN United Nations\ \ UNGC United Nations Global Compact\ \ US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency\ \ VLSFO Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil\ \ WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development\ \ WRI World Resources Institute\ \ WTT Well-to-Tank\ \ WTW Well-to-Wheel/Wake\ \ WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature\ \ * * *\ \ Glossary\ \ | Actual distance | The actual distance traveled by a shipment based on odometer readings or knowledge of the actual route. |\ | --- | --- |\ | Belly cargo | Cargo transported in a passenger aircraft but distinct from passengers' luggage. |\ | Calendar year | Calendar year is a timeframe spanning from January 1st to December 31st. In contrast, a twelve-month period consists of twelve consecutive months and does not necessarily commence on January 1st. |\ | Compressed Natural Gas(CNG) | CNG is an energy carrier made by compressing natural gas to less than 1% of its volume at standard atmospheric pressure, used primarily as an alternative to gasoline. |\ | Consignment | Refers to a quantifiable quantity of cargo that can be distinctly identified as a single unit. It is transported from a sender or consignor to a receiver or consignee, irrespective of the mode of transportation employed. |\ | CO2 | Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas naturally present in the Earth's atmosphere and a major contributor to the greenhouse effect. |\ | CO2e | Carbon dioxide equivalent is a unit that describes the collective impact of different greenhouse gases as a single measure related to the overall global radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide. |\ | CO2e intensity | A way to express the CO2e intensity of freight transport; expressed as the total CO2e emissions divided by the total transport activity, expressed in tonne-kilometers. |\ | Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation(CORSIA) | CORSIA is an aviation industry program developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO)to reduce and offset carbon emissions from international flights. |\ | Coronavirus Disease2019(COVID-19) | COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory illness caused by the novel coronavirusSARS-CoV-2, first identified in 2019. |\ \ | Distance Adjustment Factor(DAF) | The DAF is the factor expressing the difference between the actual distance and the transport activity distance. It is introduced to ensure that where different types of distance are used at different stages of an emission calculation the resulting calculation errors can be eliminated or minimized. |\ | --- | --- |\ | Fuel efficiency factor | Fuel efficiency factor is a metric used to quantify the effectiveness of fuel use in transporting goods.It is determined by dividing the total fuel consumption by the transport activity conducted. |\ | Embedded emissions | The emissions related to the manufacturing and production of a product or structure.Also known as embodied emissions. |\ | Empty trip | Empty trip refers to a transportation operation in which no cargo is being conveyed.It's important to note that the transportation of empty containers,pallets,or other load carriers is not considered an empty trip.In these instances,the load carriers assume the role of the carried freight or transported commodity. |\ | Energy | Electricity,fuels,steam,heat,compressed air and other similar mediums. |\ | Energy carrier | Any substance that can be used to generate mechanical movement or heat and to generate chemical or physical processes. |\ | Energy consumption | Energy consumption refers to the use of energy. |\ | European Union Emissions Trading System(EU ETS) | EU ETS is a carbon emissions trading system implemented by the European Union to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industries. |\ | Fleet | Fleet refers to the complete collection of a transport operator's vehicles,which can be further categorized into sub-fleets. |\ | Freighter | An aircraft dedicated solely to the transportation of cargo which does not carry passengers. |\ \ * * *\ \ Glossary\ \ | Fuel life cycle | The various stages from the production to the use phase of fossil and alternative fuels. |\ | --- | --- |\ | Fugitive or evaporative emissions | Pollutants released to air from leaks in equipment, pipelines, seals, valves, power conversion stations, etc. |\ | Great circle distance(GCD) | GCD is defined as the shortest distance between any two points on the surface of the earth, respecting its spherical surface. |\ | Greenhouse gas(GHG) | Greenhouse gases, defined as those indicated by the latest IPCC Assessment Report |\ | Greenhouse gas activity | Any activity that results in the emission of GHGs |\ | Greenhouse gas emission intensity | A factor expressing the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the specific greenhouse gas activity that caused those emissions. |\ | Global Warming Potential(GWP) | GWP is an index that measures the radiative forcing potential of greenhouse gasses over a specific time and in relation to carbon dioxide. It measures how much a given amount of a greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming over a specific timeframe. |\ | Hub | A hub is any location within a transport chain where freight is transferred, potentially involving a switch between transport modes or vehicles, regardless of further operations carried out at that location.Hubs include depots,nodes,stations,ports,airports, logistics sites,etc. |\ | Hub activity | The operations carried out at a hub,measured in the hub's throughput. |\ | Hub equipment energy provision GHG emission | The GHG emissions linked to the production,storage,processing and distribution of energy carriers used for carrying out hub operations. |\ \ | Hub equipment operation GHG emissions | The GHG emissions linked to the operation of hub equipment. |\ | --- | --- |\ | Hub Operation Category(HOC) | Represents a grouping of hub operations that share similar characteristics. |\ | Intermodal freight transport | Multimodal transport of goods by successive modes of transport, in one intermodal transport unit, without handling of the goods themselves when changing modes. The intermodal transport unit can be a container, swap body or a road or rail vehicle or a vessel. |\ | International Organization for Standardization(ISO) | ISO is an international standard-setting body that develops and publishes standards for various industries. |\ | Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) | LNG is an energy carrier formed by natural gas that has been cooled to a liquid state for easier storage and transportation. |\ | Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) | LPG is a flammable hydrocarbon used as an energy carrier in heating appliances, cooking equipment and vehicles. |\ | Load factor | Load factor is the ratio of the total cargo mass carried by a vehicle to the legally maximum payload capacity of a vehicle or vessel. |\ | Logistics Service Provider(LSP) | An LSP is a company that offers logistics and supply chain management services. |\ | Marginal accounting Modes | Method of allocation based on assigning only the additional emissions to an extra load rather than its full, proportional share. |\ | Multimodal freight transport | Means of transport or type of transport(e.g.,rail,sea,road,etc.). Transport of goods by at least two different modes of transport. Intermodal transport is a particular type of multimodal transport, often based on a contract regulating the full multimodal transport. |\ | Network distance | Effectively a variation of planned distance, network distance is used where the route options that can be taken are limited,for example rail or inland waterway networks. |\ \ * * *\ \ Glossary\ \ | Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) | NOx refers collectively to the various oxides of nitrogen that contribute to air pollution and smog. |\ | --- | --- |\ | One way trip | Travel without a return trip. |\ | Planned distance | Generally found using route planning software, the planned distance represents the distance that is intended for a vehicle to complete its journey. It is generally, but not exclusively, the same as the shortest feasible distance. |\ | Pre-carriage | An inland movement that takes place prior to the container being delivered to the port/terminal. |\ | Primary data | Otherwise known as actual or measured data; it is the “quantified value of a process or an activity from a direct measurement or a calculation based on direct measurements.”(source:ISO 14083:2023) |\ | Program data | Data from e.g., green freight programs such as SmartWay or CCWG carrier data. |\ | Ro-Ro | Roll-on/Roll-off(Ro-Ro) ships are vessels designed to carry wheeled cargo. |\ | Round trip | A group of sequential journeys that start and end in the same place. |\ | Secondary Data | Any data that is not primary data.For further details,please see Section 17 |\ | Sustainable Aviation Fuel(SAF) | SAF is an aviation fuel made from renewable resources with lower carbon emissions compared to traditional jet fuel. |\ | Shipment | Refers to the goods in a commercial transaction between a seller and a buyer.It encompasses the consignments transported as part of this transaction via a transport chain from the consignor to the consignee. |\ | Shipper | Individual or entity that sends goods for transport. |\ \ | Shortest feasible distance(SFD) | Generally found using route planning software,the shortest feasible distance tends to be the shortest distance taking into account real operating conditions and typical operational choices such as avoiding congestion hotspots or unsuitable,restricted roads. |\ | --- | --- |\ | Spark Ignition engine | An internal combustion engine that ignites fuel-air mixtures with a spark plug. |\ | Subcontractors | Company or individual that carries out the transportation service for the contractor. |\ | Tank-to-wheel(TTW) | Tank-to-wheel(or tank-to-wake for air and sea transport)refers to the section of the energy carrier's life cycle where the energy carrier is converted to propulsion energy. |\ | Throughput | The throughput is the amount of freight handled at a hub.It can be best measured as the amount of freight or goods departing from the hub. |\ | Tonne | Metric unit of mass equal to 1000 kilograms. |\ | Tonne-kilometer | The unit of measure for freight transport,representing the transport of one tonne of goods over the distance of one kilometer. |\ | Trade lanes | Heavily trafficked transport corridors where vehicle movements are heavily concentrated between multiple locations at the start and end point. |\ | Transshipment | Transshipment involves the shifting of freight or goods from one transport vehicle to another,irrespective of whether this entails a shift in transport mode. |\ | Transport activity | Transport activity is the quantification of freight or cargo moved by transport;it is usually expressed in tkm(tonne-kilometers),it characterizes the mass(tonnes)transported over a certain distance(km). |\ | Transport chain | Sequence of transport modes used to move the goods from their origin to their destination.A transport chain is therefore built of two or more transport chain elements(TCEs)Along the chain one or more |\ \ * * *\ \ Glossary\ \ | Transport chain element(TCE) | A TCE is one element of the transport chain.It can consist of a transport activity or a hub activity. |\ | --- | --- |\ | Transport distance | Refers to the distance covered from the consignor to the consignee during the transportation of the freight. |\ | Transport network | The full set of transport-related activities when all transport chains are aggregated. |\ | Transport operation | Operation of any vehicle with the purpose to move freight, including the movement of freight in pipelines. |\ | Transport operation category(TOC) | TOC is a grouping of transport categories sharing similar characteristics. |\ | Twenty-foot equivalent unit(TEU) | TEU is a standard unit of measurement for shipping container capacity of a 20ft (6.10m) container. |\ | Value chain | While supply chains refer to systems that move a resource or products to a consumer,the value chain refers to the manner in which value is added to a product along the chain. |\ | Vehicle energy provision GHG emissions | These are the GHG emissions linked to the production,storage, processing and distribution of energy carriers used for carrying out vehicle operations. |\ | Vehicle operation | A vehicle operation is any transport operation providing deployment of a vehicle,regardless of whether it is autonomous,manned,piloted,or remotely controlled. |\ | Vehicle operation GHG emissions | The GHG emissions linked to the operation of vehicles. |\ | Well-to-tank(WTT) | The section of the energy carrier's life cycle from the start of the initial process to generate the input feedstocks to the moment to the moment is supplied to the vehicle(at the recharging or refueling station.) |\ \ Version history\ \ | Version | Year | Summary of changes |\ | --- | --- | --- |\ | 1.0 | 2016 | Initial version |\ | 2.0 | 2019 | Major revision of v1.0 with updates on design; Alignment with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol; Inclusion of logistics sites, updated treatment of inland waterways, data collection and reporting guidelines; Additional information on reporting of emissions; Specific guidance for the mail and parcels sector. |\ | 3.0 | 2023 | Updated design, language alignment with ISO 14083, updated emission factors implemented in Section 3, Module 1. |\ | 3.1 | 2024 | Updated Data Module 3 with latest sources, added new China values, integrated EV accounting whitepaper, and made minor amendments |\ \ * * *\ \ ISBN 9789083362908\ \ 9 789083 362908